Ship of Fools: Better Together campaign

Thread: Better Together campaign Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023294

Posted by Wannabe Heretic (# 11037) on :

Does anyone know anything about this campaign:

Better Together

It’s supported by the Bishop of Ebbsfleet and describes itself as “calling on all Anglicans to come together to enhance the Church’s mission and ministry” and “applying the principles of unity, diversity, freedom and respect”. But it’s not really clear what it is concretely trying to do. It also seems like it might be using “Anglo-Catholic” as a synonym for opponents of the ordination of women so maybe it’s a group affirming the decision of those who didn’t join the Ordinariate.

Anybody know any more?

PS please help this thread avoid dead horse territory – I’d just like to understand what is behind this campaign, not debate the underlying issues.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

As I understand it, it's a palm branch being offered by a group of FinF inclined Anglicans who, although still not recognizing the validity of priestly orders conferred on women, think that the Church of England has too long been caught up in bitterness over this issue and that the time has come to focus on what unites us. It's not clear how this will play out in practice, but the general response, from both FinF and AffCath friends of mine, has been a great sigh of relief. +Ebbsfleet's patronage, combined with the support of many prominent Anglo-Catholic priests, does make it harder to ignore.

Posted by TonyinOxford (# 12657) on :

Given the fact that, in today's Synod, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet's co-religionists and, for all I know, the good bishop himself, as a voice in the episcopate, are trying to enshrine the theological inferiority of women in law , this might seem to be coming a bit late in the day.
[Votive]

Posted by testbear (# 4602) on :

Not to be confused with Better Together, the cross-party non-partisan campaign against Scottish independence. (Who also want to focus on what unites us and forget the issues which have so often and so recently divided us...)

Posted by Gashead (# 15296) on :

I for one support this initiative. There will always be sniping from people like TonyinOxford but this is a genuine attempt to find a way forward together. There is so much more that unites us than divides us. It's a shame that, to some people, 'traditionalists', for want of a better phrase, are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TonyinOxford:
Given the fact that, in today's Synod, the Bishop of Ebbsfleet's co-religionists and, for all I know, the good bishop himself, as a voice in the episcopate, are trying to enshrine the theological inferiority of women in law , this might seem to be coming a bit late in the day.

Just out of curiosity, how would one enshrine the theological inferiority of women in law?

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Quite easily. Get a majority made up of men of a particular persuasion, and pass the legislation.

North Carolina has shown how to do this in relation to the role of women in society, so it should be possible for some of those poor threatened males to do the same across the pond.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

This initiative reflects what many of my a/c friends think - that i is possible to respect women in ordained ministry. There has been a tendency to demonise them.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gashead:
I for one support this initiative. There will always be sniping from people like TonyinOxford but this is a genuine attempt to find a way forward together. There is so much more that unites us than divides us. It's a shame that, to some people, 'traditionalists', for want of a better phrase, are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I've got to ask if you're from the same part of the CofE as +Jonathan!

Any initiative, anywhere on God's green earth will be designed to further the interests of those who propose it, unless they have no real intention to make it effective. I've nothing here against those putting it forward, but I've seen too many campaigns for unity.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Those of my friends who are joining this seem to be younger spiky priests who want people to know they are nice chaps really. Which makes a kind of sense. Why anyone else would sign up, I don't know.

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Those of my friends who are joining this seem to be younger spiky priests who want people to know they are nice chaps really.

That's my impression as well (although perhaps not the words I would have used). I gather there is a significant overlap with 'Fidelium' (which, until a few weeks ago, was called 'the New Oxford Movement', which a few weeks before the name change didn't exist at all).

[ 06. July 2012, 18:25: Message edited by: (S)pike couchant ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I love the way it conflates England and Britain, which makes my Welsh heart all warm and fuzzy and how it takes about nice things like unity and diversity while being apparently in complete ignorance of the existence of any Christian traditions other than the Church of England. Where do I sign...? [Two face]

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gashead:
I for one support this initiative. There will always be sniping from people like TonyinOxford but this is a genuine attempt to find a way forward together. There is so much more that unites us than divides us. It's a shame that, to some people, 'traditionalists', for want of a better phrase, are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

How so? For most of the CofE's existence the only thing that has united it's fissiparous, mutually irreconcilable theological strands is political diktat and expediency. The so-called Elizabethan Settlement has run it's course and the disintegration that is occurring is predictable.

Posted by Unreformed (# 17203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:
How so? For most of the CofE's existence the only thing that has united it's fissiparous, mutually irreconcilable theological strands is political diktat and expediency. The so-called Elizabethan Settlement has run it's course and the disintegration that is occurring is predictable.

Exactly. The CofE, and for that matter Anglicanism as a whole, is an expired political compromise that is running out of gas. A church like CL describes could do well so long as being (at least nominally) a Christian and going to church was the "respectable" thing to do in society. But in an increasingly secular world, it can't.

[ 06. July 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: Unreformed ]

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

Strikes me as a massive about face. It is essentially congregationalist, arguing to co-exist as one strand of a diverse body. Which is very different from arguing that the entire church needs catholic order, etc...

If this is all that those remaining after Anglicanorum Coetibus have to offer then the game really is up and I don't mean that nastily just factually. For this is manifestly not a catholic vision that has a consistent understanding of ecclesiology. It is live and let live but please give me a corner to play in.

And if one really does think it 'better together' but believes in Catholic order why choose Rita over Peter? Makes no sense at all and smacks of desparation.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

At the time of writing, I do not know whether the Church of England’s General Synod has voted to ordain women bishops outright, to adopt some risible compromise, or to prolong the agony for a few more years. Agony of boredom, that is. Let me save you the trouble of following the proceedings with a cut-out-’n’-keep guide to this tedious debate. You need to know just two things.
First, there’s overwhelming support in the pews for women bishops. Second, the Anglo-Catholic “traditionalists” who want to stay in the Church of England behind some sort of firewall are deluded. Having turned down the Pope’s offer of reunion with Rome, the most they can hope for is a playpen inside a wider liberal Protestant denomination. As for the flying bishops who look after them, they believe that they can stay untainted by the changes. Not to be rude, but perhaps they should think of organising a pilgrimage to Marshal Pétain’s grave.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

We hear a lot about the A/C positioin in this debate, but where do the con-evos in the CofE stand on this? The St Helen's Bishopsgate types? They must be opposed to women in leadership positions too, surely?

Posted by (S)pike couchant (# 17199) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
We hear a lot about the A/C positioin in this debate, but where do the con-evos in the CofE stand on this? The St Helen's Bishopsgate types? They must be opposed to women in leadership positions too, surely?

You've raised a very important point. The A-C majority of FinF (which allegedly has Evangelical members, but I challenge anyone to name one) are not of one mind with the Evangelicals in Reform and the like. Most Annglo-Catholics have absolutely no problem with women in 'leadership positions' other than the priesthood and the episcopacy. In this matter, as in much else, the follow Rome and regard the ordination of women as a stumbling block in the path toward corporate reunion (which, frankly, it is). Should Rome change her mind, I suspect that 95% of FinF would follow.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
We hear a lot about the A/C positioin in this debate, but where do the con-evos in the CofE stand on this? The St Helen's Bishopsgate types? They must be opposed to women in leadership positions too, surely?

Yes they are mostly (though not all) against women bishops on Biblical grounds. But they don't have the same theory of taint as some of the more catholic-minded might, so they would not feel driven to leave in the same way. Those who felt able to remain in a denomination that ordained women as long as they didn't have one in their church, would likely feel able to remain in one that had women bishops, as long as they didn't have to have one in their own church.

Of course there are evangelicals who believe that it is wrong to be in a church that is part of a denomination that mixes error with truth, and therefore couldn't in conscience put themselves under a heretical bishop - but if they believed that strongly enough then they would have already left the CofE anyway.

There are some evangelicals who believe that women can be ordained but not become bishops, but not so many of them and I suspect they are more likely to be HTB types than trad con-evos.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Second, the Anglo-Catholic “traditionalists” who want to stay in the Church of England behind some sort of firewall are deluded. Having turned down the Pope’s offer of reunion with Rome, the most they can hope for is a playpen inside a wider liberal Protestant denomination. As for the flying bishops who look after them, they believe that they can stay untainted by the changes. Not to be rude, but perhaps they should think of organising a pilgrimage to Marshal Pétain’s grave.

It's interesting that you don't see it as "Having turned down the Pope's offer of a playpen inside a wider Catholic denomination...".

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by (S)pike couchant:
The A-C majority of FinF (which allegedly has Evangelical members, but I challenge anyone to name one)

St. Philip & Jacob, Bristol - charismatic evangelcal, under its previous vicar, the late Malcolm Widdicombe.

I don't think the new vicar has changed that but i will look out for their advert in the next FiF newsletter.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by CL:

quote:

How so? For most of the CofE's existence the only thing that has united it's fissiparous, mutually irreconcilable theological strands is political diktat and expediency. The so-called Elizabethan Settlement has run it's course and the disintegration that is occurring is predictable.

Thats one way of reading it.

The other way of reading it is to understand it in terms of a genuinely Christian and prophetic stance of theological broadness and working out of differences (and also living with contradiction) that is prophetic not only to an increasingly narrow church throughout the world (but especially in the West) but also a prophetic witness to the rest of the world (secular and other faiths). Some would argue that the Anglican Communion is better poised (and relevant) to make this prophetic witness now than it has ever been before in its entire history.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
We hear a lot about the A/C positioin in this debate, but where do the con-evos in the CofE stand on this? The St Helen's Bishopsgate types? They must be opposed to women in leadership positions too, surely?

As ken says, many con-evos are opposed, but it's not nearly such a make-or-break issue as it is for a trad. A-C., because most evos don't really believe in ordination anyway. They might not think it right to have a woman in a "headship" role, but they wouldn't consider her ministry invalid. It would just be one more of the (many) errors in the CoE's practice. And I bet they would generally prefer an evangelical woman bish to a non-evangelical male.

Charismatic and open evos tend to have similar (non-)views on ordination and tend to be much less fussed about headship issues, so they're quite largely (in my experience) pro-OoW.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

That is because the pope manifestly isnt offering a mere playpen. Unlike those left behind, we who join the Ordinariate are in full communion with everyone and often appointed to diocesan posts. Hardly play pen is it?

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

It's not any different from those anglo-papalists who have always played a full part in the life of their dioceses and remain in communion with other Anglicans. The fact that some have always chosen to stay behind their own kiddie-gates doesn't imply that they had to. In exactly the same way that the Ordinariate functions. There wouldn't be any need for it if all converts were happy to plunge into mainstream Catholicism (sorry for the mixed metaphor).

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
At the time of writing, I do not know whether the Church of England’s General Synod has voted to ordain women bishops outright, to adopt some risible compromise, or to prolong the agony for a few more years. Agony of boredom, that is. Let me save you the trouble of following the proceedings with a cut-out-’n’-keep guide to this tedious debate. You need to know just two things.
First, there’s overwhelming support in the pews for women bishops. Second, the Anglo-Catholic “traditionalists” who want to stay in the Church of England behind some sort of firewall are deluded. Having turned down the Pope’s offer of reunion with Rome, the most they can hope for is a playpen inside a wider liberal Protestant denomination. As for the flying bishops who look after them, they believe that they can stay untainted by the changes. Not to be rude, but perhaps they should think of organising a pilgrimage to Marshal Pétain’s grave.

You mad bro?

You need to take some time out and consider whether you are going to:

Continue to slate and vilify those who did not consider the Roman Catholic offer to be strong enough.

OR

Continue to try and encourage them to follow you.

Because as sure as the sun rising in the morning you can’t do both (like you have been).

Your anger, disdain and frustration leak through your posts, why in God’s good name would anyone want to follow you when you are being so nasty? It is pretty amusing to watch you try and catch flies with vinegar.

Better Together is IMHO the working out of the Ordinariate in the C of E, as I have said before the fork in the road put an end to the fence sitting. Folk had to choose. Those who choose to stay have to come to an accommodation and compromise. Bit like the Ordinariate members have to with their Roman Catholic brothers (and to a lesser degree sisters). Nobody ever gets everything they want, but you rarely get anything worth having by being nasty.

Go see your Spiritual Director and ask him whether you should back off from interfering, casting aspersions and hurtful opinions about the C of E. I bet you £10 for Christian Aid he tells you to back off.

As for the pilgrimage, I will meet you there, oath breaker.

AtB, Pyx_e

Posted by Laurence (# 9135) on :

quote:

Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
As for the flying bishops who look after them, they believe that they can stay untainted by the changes.

Given that the phrase "this is not about a theology of taint" has been repeated scores of times in the past twenty years, I find this phrase intriguing, to say the least.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
We hear a lot about the A/C positioin in this debate, but where do the con-evos in the CofE stand on this? The St Helen's Bishopsgate types? They must be opposed to women in leadership positions too, surely?

A small minority respond to the AC complaint that ordaining women as bishops would make union with Rome harder with, "All the more reason to do it."

But the evangelical view of sacraments and apostolic succession is such that the role of bishops is seen to be different among con-evos than it is with ACs. The chances of con-evo clergy leaving the CofE if women become bishops is much less than that of ACs.

As a fairly-con-evo I welcome the initiative from +Ebbsfleet as a positive move. May the Anglican church continue to be a place where issues on which people disagree can be discussed without splits, no matter how much that debate hurts.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

Sorry the thread somehow lopped off the sentence explaining that my last comment but one a copy of Damian Thompson's blog post. So his views and vinegar not mine!

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
Sorry the thread somehow lopped off the sentence explaining that my last comment but one a copy of Damian Thompson's blog post. So his views and vinegar not mine!

Really? How astonishing. The poster known as 'leo' has that problem sometimes, but nobody else seems to.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by CL:

quote:

How so? For most of the CofE's existence the only thing that has united it's fissiparous, mutually irreconcilable theological strands is political diktat and expediency. The so-called Elizabethan Settlement has run it's course and the disintegration that is occurring is predictable.
Thats one way of reading it.

The other way of reading it is to understand it in terms of a genuinely Christian and prophetic stance of theological broadness and working out of differences (and also living with contradiction) that is prophetic not only to an increasingly narrow church throughout the world (but especially in the West) but also a prophetic witness to the rest of the world (secular and other faiths). Some would argue that the Anglican Communion is better poised (and relevant) to make this prophetic witness now than it has ever been before in its entire history.

Those same people would no doubt be equally verbose in praising the Emperor's latest attire.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Those same people would no doubt be equally verbose in praising the Emperor's latest attire.

The final irony being we don't have an Emperor, and you ............. do. Who is looking lovely these days btw.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:

quote:

Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
As for the flying bishops who look after them, they believe that they can stay untainted by the changes.
Given that the phrase "this is not about a theology of taint" has been repeated scores of times in the past twenty years, I find this phrase intriguing, to say the least.

Well spotted!

Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:

quote:

Originally posted by rugbyplayingpriest:
As for the flying bishops who look after them, they believe that they can stay untainted by the changes.
Given that the phrase "this is not about a theology of taint" has been repeated scores of times in the past twenty years, I find this phrase intriguing, to say the least.
Well spotted!

Things look different from the other bank, clearly.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0