|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
|
Edify
Apprentice
# 17411
|
Posted
Canon Rosie Harper, vicar of Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, said that failure to agree to the consecration of women as bishops ‘’will inevitably be seen as the act of a dying Church more wedded to the past than committed to hope for the future."
So, is this the beginning of the end for the C of E?
[ 08. April 2017, 01:22: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
I am because you are
Posts: 4 | From: Cheshire | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I think that is very dependent on how it plays out over the next year, but the damage done today could have significant fallout. Poor Justin. He just got a chalice full of deadly poison.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Edify
Apprentice
# 17411
|
Posted
Is it that the majority requirements are absurdley high? There was an overwhelming majority in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy and a majority - 64% - in Laity. Surely that is good enough?
--------------------
I am because you are
Posts: 4 | From: Cheshire | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edify
Apprentice
# 17411
|
Posted
quote:
The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?
That's true, but resisting a principle that is self-evidently just is hardly likely to arrest decline.
--------------------
I am because you are
Posts: 4 | From: Cheshire | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edify:
quote:
The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?
That's true, but resisting a principle that is self-evidently just is hardly likely to arrest decline.
We used to hear a lot about the 'two integrities'. Some of us feel our integrity has been attacked by today's vote.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Yes. The church has indicated that it does not want to have relevance, and will probably struggle and die.
Voting for the measure would not have made the church grow. Voting against will increase the speed of death. I suspect that many people will leave the church on the back of this.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
I'm very disappointed with what has happened. I am a firm supporter of women priests and wanted to see women bishops. Despite this I attend a FiF church. I feel like looking for anew church at the moment. Opponents of the measure were offered provision but don't want to make any provision for the other side.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
If the Church needs relevance to survive, then it isn't worth the effort.
I support women bishops and all, but honestly people. This is not the end of the world.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Perhaps those opposed to women bishops thought that everything would carry on in the same old way. I think that they may be surprised by how many people vote with their feet.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
ISTM that while the house of clergy accurately represents the clergy of the CofE, the house of laity seriously doesn't. It seems to be made up of people with lots of spare time to go to committee meetings, and lots of interest in making their voices, and the voices of their hobby-horses heard, unlike the regular worshippers who just want to get on with the work of God.
Is this the best way to make decisions in the CofE?
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
If the 44 bishops who voted in favour now voted with their feet and formed an independent and disestablished Church in England, would that be a sufficient act of witness?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
If the 44 bishops who voted in favour now voted with their feet and formed an independent and disestablished Church in England, would that be a sufficient act of witness?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The parts of the church that are growing tend to be the ones who oppose women bishops.
The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?
FFS Leo, it does not need to be done as a cure for decline. It needs to be done because it is the right thing to do. Don't you dare suggest that's it's just for when we're desperate and there's no better reason.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps those opposed to women bishops thought that everything would carry on in the same old way.
Actually, the evidence is that those who voted against (certainly those who spoke in the chamber) are perfectly well aware that the Church of England will end up with women bishops in the very near future. What they wanted was something better for opponents than was offered in the measure they voted for.
Seriously, just listen the speeches and the post-vote reactions.
Does anyone really think that the C of E will not have women bishops within the next few years?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
Next few? Very unlikely to be less than 10, by the time it gets through parliament and Lords, a vacancy comes up, a woman is nominated and accepted. And of course by then the CofE will have regained its rightful place in speaking truth to the nation, showing its complete relevance to and involvement with ordinary people.
Not.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrrt01
Shipmate
# 11264
|
Posted
I suspect this will generate a lot of anger. Next time there are general synod elections, a lot more attention may be being paid to who is standing and what they think. And there's also the possibility that attitudes will harden about how much to compromise. But that's not until 2015. So at least three more years before there's any chance of looking at this again.
Posts: 62 | From: Manchester | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edify:
quote:
The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?
That's true, but resisting a principle that is self-evidently just is hardly likely to arrest decline.
Clearly it's not "self-evident" to everyone.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
The opponents are genuinely claiming that it's not just?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
What now?
We, the dear ole C/E, need to find a way to answer the How question.
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps those opposed to women bishops thought that everything would carry on in the same old way.
Actually, the evidence is that those who voted against (certainly those who spoke in the chamber) are perfectly well aware that the Church of England will end up with women bishops in the very near future. What they wanted was something better for opponents than was offered in the measure they voted for.
Except that those who want women bishops will now trounce those against in the Synod elections and when it comes to revoting on the Measure, leave them with no provision or protection. Nothing.
They've shot themselves not in the foot, but the head.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
ISTM that while the house of clergy accurately represents the clergy of the CofE, the house of laity seriously doesn't. It seems to be made up of people with lots of spare time to go to committee meetings, and lots of interest in making their voices, and the voices of their hobby-horses heard, unlike the regular worshippers who just want to get on with the work of God.
That sounds exactly like most PCCs to me, so what's not representative about it?
[ 20. November 2012, 20:32: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps those opposed to women bishops thought that everything would carry on in the same old way.
Actually, the evidence is that those who voted against (certainly those who spoke in the chamber) are perfectly well aware that the Church of England will end up with women bishops in the very near future. What they wanted was something better for opponents than was offered in the measure they voted for.
Except that those who want women bishops will now trounce those against in the Synod elections and when it comes to revoting on the Measure, leave them with no provision or protection. Nothing.
That's as may be. But plenty of people who are in favour of women bishops voted and spoke against the measure today too. I'd have thought that some of them will try instead to get a better deal for opponents rather than see them trampled even deeper. It's a long time since I've had a live dog in the fight, if ever I did, but I listened to more than half the debate live today and was generally impressed by the standard and concern shown.
Who knows what is next? We'll all just have to wait and see.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
What now? Well it would help the CofE's credibility if it were seen to get on with preaching the Gospel. While I happen to agree with the CofE bishops who have been saying that the presence of women and men in all levels of ordained ministry is among other things a matter of credibility, the Church will have no credibility at all if it doesn't get on with its core business.
To illustrate this, I spent this afternoon with a Mothers' Union group made up from several Church in Wales parishes and including an RC friend. We looked at the future of the Church in Wales, and while there was some interest in the CofE's dilemma (which will certainly be ours again very soon) we were of one mind that there are more important things for the mission of the Church, let alone its sheer survival.
People in the 'real' world are puzzled that we don't already have women bishops, and many are concerned that we don't officially support SSM, but they are astonished when we let these issues get in the way of what we are actually here to do (even if we think it would be better done with women in pointy hats).
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
Didn't think I'd ever quote Ricky Gervais in a theological debate, but he's just tweeted this:
quote:
The Queen should do an episode of undercover boss where she tries to get a job as a Bishop in that Church Of England she's in charge of.
Meanwhile back in the real world, while I was in favour of women bishops I was not as fully in favour as I was of women priests. I've heard the political, sociological and theological debates and agree that there is no reason why women should not become bishops.
Thus far the same as twenty odd years ago. But there's a difference between the debates. In the Ordination of women debate there were some women who were saying that they believed God was calling them to the position of priest in the church of England. I have not heard of any women saying they are being called to be C of E bishops.
And that's the clincher. If God is actually calling women to be bishops in England we should not stand in his way.
I am convinced by the arguments, but the lack of women saying, "I've been called," is the reason that I'm not as enthusiastic as I was before.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Just a quick host post to point out that there are also good posts on the current controversy on the Archbishops' Amendment thread which I've closed to prevent duplication - so have a look there but copy and reply here. If you want me to copy a post over let me know.
thanks!
Louise
Dead horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
ISTM that while the house of clergy accurately represents the clergy of the CofE, the house of laity seriously doesn't. It seems to be made up of people with lots of spare time to go to committee meetings, and lots of interest in making their voices, and the voices of their hobby-horses heard, unlike the regular worshippers who just want to get on with the work of God.
If I recall correctly, it was the House of Laity who dragged their feet the most when it came to the ordination of women as well. In order to be a member you need the time to attend meetings, and the money to travel all over the country to get to them. As a result it has to be almost entirely made up of retired middle class people, and is deeply reactionary on most issues.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
...those who want women bishops will now trounce those against in the Synod elections and when it comes to revoting on the Measure, leave them with no provision or protection. Nothing.
They've shot themselves not in the foot, but the head.
I think you're right. The backlash from the public at large is going to be such that there will be nil sympathy for "traditionalists". And - I have to say - they will get what they deserve. They have thought that they hold a whip hand and can control the vast majority of the C of E. After the dust has settled from today's debacle, I think that they will realise just how much of an unpopular minority they have become.
I still cannot get over the fact that 42 out of 44 dioceses voted decisively in favour of this (with one of the other 2 being Chichester, which needs to be put in special measures anyway). How can GS defy such a clear lead from the dioceses? What was the point of getting each diocese to vote on this, if their clear view (from a much wider electorate) was going to be ignored?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edify:
Is it that the majority requirements are absurdley high? There was an overwhelming majority in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy and a majority - 64% - in Laity. Surely that is good enough?
No they are not. They are a good check-and-balance mechanism instituted because it was well understood that there would be divisive proposals and minority factions that will try to impose their will.
A two-thirds majority seems to be a good standard for changing the fundamental nature of an organisation. It means that there is a clear majority in favour. I have seen organisations where the requirement is as high as a three-quarters majority.
Getting it passed in three separate houses is a good check against one house going rogue. This is how the US government is set up.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
Fresh from my blog this evening:
Today the Women-Bishops Measure was narrowly defeated at the Church of England's General Synod. Having gained the required two thirds majority in the House of Bishops and also in the House of Clergy, it failed by a mere half dozen votes in the House of Laity. So near and yet so far. We can but hope that perhaps not all the hard work and dialogue which went into creating what we trusted was a workable Measure, has been altogether wasted. However we are not optimistic. Today is a sad day for the Church of England. It will be at least five years before the issue can tested again and may well be much longer. Twenty years ago the General Synod took the brave and sensible step of passing a Measure which allowed women to be ordained priest. Now a third of the church's active clergy are women and many of them are amongst its most gifted servants. More than a few rightly occupy significant leadership positions as Archdeacons and Cathedral Deans, a number which is likely to increase if anything. It is therefore a sad irony that the Episcopate should continue to barred to them. We do not doubt that some self-appointed traditionalists will quietly rejoice at the defeat of this Measure. However their victory will be a hollow one as the issue of women bishops won't quietly go away. If anything the defeat of this Measure will cast a long shadow and may well haunt the church for years to come. Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Panda
Shipmate
# 2951
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
... Thus far the same as twenty odd years ago. But there's a difference between the debates. In the Ordination of women debate there were some women who were saying that they believed God was calling them to the position of priest in the church of England. I have not heard of any women saying they are being called to be C of E bishops.
And that's the clincher. If God is actually calling women to be bishops in England we should not stand in his way.
I am convinced by the arguments, but the lack of women saying, "I've been called," is the reason that I'm not as enthusiastic as I was before.
And when have we ever heard a man say exactly that? If we did, the church wouldn't touch him with a bargepole. Justin Welby said he was 'astonished'. He didn't say, 'Yes, I think the CNC got it exactly right.' Does that mean he's the wrong man for the job?
No bishop has ever said he always thought he should be a bishop. Humility is generally a requirement in this outfit, so I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water.
Posts: 1637 | From: North Wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
ISTM that while the house of clergy accurately represents the clergy of the CofE, the house of laity seriously doesn't. It seems to be made up of people with lots of spare time to go to committee meetings, and lots of interest in making their voices, and the voices of their hobby-horses heard, unlike the regular worshippers who just want to get on with the work of God.
That sounds exactly like most PCCs to me, so what's not representative about it?
Indeed it does. And that's a problem. Apparently, people only realize that when the Synod/Convention/Assembly doesn't vote the way they want.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edify:
Canon Rosie Harper, vicar of Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, said that failure to agree to the consecration of women as bishops ‘’will inevitably be seen as the act of a dying Church more wedded to the past than committed to hope for the future."
So, is this the beginning of the end for the C of E?
With or without women bishops, the Church of England's probably got twenty or thirty years left as a going concern and maintaining a presence in practically every community. That's assuming long term trends which have held good for most of my life continue - and there's little reason to suppose they won't. I think the Cathedrals will survive but life in the parishes, particularly in smaller rural communities where money and manpower cuts have always been felt most keenly, will be rather less certain. I hope I'm wrong about all of the above. However I feel that today's vote will hasten the demise of the Church of England if anything.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.
Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adrian1
Shipmate
# 3994
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.
Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.
I'm being deadly serious. I think if such matters were left to ordinary church members in the pews there would be a far better prospect of good sense prevailing.
--------------------
The Parson's Handbook contains much excellent advice, which, if it were more generally followed, would bring some order and reasonableness into the amazing vagaries of Anglican Ritualism. Adrian Fortescue
Posts: 1986 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
From someone within the Anglican Communion looking into the current state of affairs within the spiritual 'Mother Church', I wonder anew at how diverse the Communion is.
It is now 20 years since women were first ordained as priests here in Australia (though the first ordinations were done without synodical approval due to the blocking of the legislation by conservative dioceses against the wishes of the 80% who were in favour). At no time was any special provisions sought for those who did not support the move, nor when the subsequent legislation was passed.
With the exceptions of a minority of dioceses (such as Sydney and Ballarat) which do not ordain women to the priesthood, the rest of the province really doesn't seem to be worried, rather, on the contrary, rejoices in the wide diversity of ministry on offer. I have found the same to be the case in different parts of England when I visit.
Women have served as Anglican bishops in a number of countries - including the United States, Canada and New Zealand - since 1989. Having met people like Bishop Penny Jamieson, who in 1990 became the first woman diocesan, I must say many of them have been living testimony that God indeed is calling women to both the priesthood and the episcopate.
The Anglican Church of Australia took a little longer, unfortunately. In September 2007, the Australian church's appellate tribunal ruled that there was no constitutional impediment to women becoming bishops. Fortunately for us, the church here is not 'established' and so the state or federal parliaments have no say in the internal operations of the church.
A subsequent bishops' conference, at Newcastle, New South Wales in early April 2008, cleared the way for the first consecration of women bishops in Australia. Note that it was the bishop's conference that cleared the way: with our General Synod having passed the required legislation for women priests, it was seen that the door to the episcopacy was ipso facto opened, within the usual requirements of canonical election, fitness, etc. Consequently, +Kay Goldsworthy was the first assistant bishop appointed. We are still waiting for the Holy Spirit to show its choice of a women as diocesan.
I hope that synodically governed but episcopally led' might find a measure around the situation: I wonder if there are any bishops in England who, like the Archbship of Perth (and Primate); the Archbsihop of Melbourne and the Bishop of Canberra simply went ahead and ordained women to the priesthood - the legislation quickly followed!
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Well said, EL.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
42 out of 44 diocese have voted in favour of the proposals, I presume they got the 67% of necessary votes in the laity.
36% have voted against in the General Synod.
If looks like quite a few GS members have voted no when their diocese has voted yes. It is up to the Diocesan Synods in those 42 of the 44 to vote some new members to the GS. Ones which will better represent their views.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Meanwhile back in the real world, while I was in favour of women bishops I was not as fully in favour as I was of women priests. I've heard the political, sociological and theological debates and agree that there is no reason why women should not become bishops.
Thus far the same as twenty odd years ago. But there's a difference between the debates. In the Ordination of women debate there were some women who were saying that they believed God was calling them to the position of priest in the church of England. I have not heard of any women saying they are being called to be C of E bishops.
And that's the clincher. If God is actually calling women to be bishops in England we should not stand in his way.
I am convinced by the arguments, but the lack of women saying, "I've been called," is the reason that I'm not as enthusiastic as I was before.
That would rather depend, though, on seeing being a bishop as somehow fundamentally different from being a priest, rather than seeing bishops as basically senior priests.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
A news item FYI
Swaziland gets first female Anglican bishop
quote:
"I am going to try to represent the mother attribute of God," Wamukoya said. "A mother is a caring person but at the same time, a mother can be firm in doing whatever she is doing."
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
I spent the evening wailing and gnashing my teeth at the sight of the church I love shooting itself in the foot though not (I believe and hope) in the head.
But enough already. The point for now has to be for the majority to express their dismay clearly, to Synod but also, for the sake of our credibility, to the country. For my own small part, I'll start at the vigil outside Church House today.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.
Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.
I'm being deadly serious. I think if such matters were left to ordinary church members in the pews there would be a far better prospect of good sense prevailing.
I'm in full agreement.
If you're going to have any semblance of "democracy", then the system for electing representatives should be as fair and representative as possible. There is no alternative to allowing ALL members of parish Electoral Rolls a vote in who represents them in General Synod.
This present mess is due, to a great part, to the fact that GS members have felt that they could do what they like regardless of what the people they are meant to represent want. GS members are first and foremost representing their dioceses. They are NOT there to be exclusively representing their minority groupings.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.
Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.
If the Church of England ever decided to question the incarnation, why should the House of Laity be more competent to pronounce on it than the laity as a whole? It's not as though the Church of England claims any special revelatory authority for the General Synod.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I found this on an article about Justin Welby.
quote:
At Coventry Cathedral he became involved in conflict resolution and peace building in war-torn areas around the world
A (theologically) war-torn area desperately in need of wise conflict resolution?
Time for a prophetic verse from an ancient hymn
quote:
Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song.
"How long, O Lord" pretty much sums it up. What happened yesterday has attracted bucket-loads of scornful wonder already.
I'm praying for Justin Welby in the hope that his conflict resolution skills might find a way from this night of weeping towards a morn of song. Yesterday was a grim day. Maybe today should be a pray and reflect day?
My independent nonco congo, which remains conservative on some issues, has had women elders for 15 years - following a not inconsiderable debate. Nobody bats an eye today. Nor would they if the next church pastor/lead elder was a woman.
Character and gifting are the determinants for us now. We know it was not always seen that way. We know the scriptures and traditions. It seems better to us the way it is now than the way it was. Collectively, before God, we have changed our mind.
I have no idea even if it is possible that the C of E might reach that kind of resolution, given its large multi-congregational membership, its international links and the width of co-existing views. I do hope and pray you can find a better way soon. The sort of "scornful wonder" this has attracted, on top of the internal anger and pain, demonstrates this is a crap public witness to the One who prayed that we might all be one, just as He and the Father are One. I hope at least everyone sees that today. That might at least be a starting point.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
[ 21. November 2012, 07:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I heard on the news that the bishops are holding an extraordinary meeting this morning.
Let's hope they can do something extraordinary.
[ 21. November 2012, 08:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adrian1:
Maybe the time has come for issues as important as this to not be decided by the General Synod but by ballot of Electoral Roll members. At least then we could perhaps prevent the will of the majority being thwarted by the demands of a minority which, though extremely vocal, is numerically tiny.
Is this just polemic, or are you serious? Would you be happy to settle, say, lay presidency or a continued commitment to the Incarnation on this basis? Sounds a tad tantrumy to me.
You mean "Are you serious? You can't trust that lot of unwashed plebs"?
[ 21. November 2012, 08:20: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
A news item FYI
Swaziland gets first female Anglican bishop
quote:
"I am going to try to represent the mother attribute of God," Wamukoya said. "A mother is a caring person but at the same time, a mother can be firm in doing whatever she is doing."
Thanks for posting that Latchkey kid. I love the quote.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the Church of England ever decided to question the incarnation, why should the House of Laity be more competent to pronounce on it than the laity as a whole? It's not as though the Church of England claims any special revelatory authority for the General Synod.
I confess, I misunderstood Adrian to begin with - I thought he was advocating throwing such decisions over to the general electorate, not just to the signed-up "membership" of the C of E. Sorry about that. Let's drop the Incarnation idea, therefore.
But what about lay presidency at the Eucharist? Would those people dissatisfied with the Synod's vote yesterday but for whom the ordained ministry remains the proper way channel for the administration of the Eucharist be prepared to turn that major constitutional issue over to the laity at large on a simple vote? My guess is that many of them would not.
I suspect Adrian 1, from what I can gather about his general attitude to scuh things from hereabouts, would be much less likely to hazard the issue of lay presidency to such a vote, but is happy to devolve this decisions to the laity at large because he knows they can be expected overwhelmingly to agree with him about it. Perhaps I'm wrong.
But certainly others who had nothing but good to say of the Synod decision to ordain women to the presbyterate in 92, and little ill to say of it constitutionally until yesterday, are now decrying it as a failure because it voted the "wrong" way. I just don't think, in the cool light of day, that they will find that that is very consistent, nor the mooted plebiscite alternative as particularly desirable.
I understand the anger and frustration, but castigating Synodical structures and lay members simply because you do not agree with the result on this occasion looks a bit churlish to me.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
I've been thinking about this, and have decided to bring it home, in the sense of looking at the possibility of me being a member of General Synod.
It's unlikely to happen because I have a full-time job and do not have unlimited holiday. Members of DS are ex-officio PCC members, so that's three committees I'd be on.
The greater problem, to my mind, is the electorate for the House of Laity in GS. I believe, at least, that it is restricted to DS members. To my mind, it should be everyone on an electoral roll. I'm not sure how that would work, but I think there needs to be a way of making it work, to give the House of Laity the same legitimacy as the other two houses of GS.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
