Ship of Fools: Timid C of E Bishops?

Thread: Timid C of E Bishops? 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=028829

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

An old vicar told me a story about a consecration of an Anglican bishop. All the other bishops were huddled round the new bishop laying hands on. "What are they doing?" - a little boy asked. 'Removing his spine' his father replied...

The Provost of Glasgow asks 'How do bishops of a liberal mind in the C of E sleep?'

He is talking here about the headship bishop who will not recognise women bishops, and how come the more liberal and generous minded bishops remain silent about this controversial appointment.

I was told by the friend of a friend (!) that in the C of E House of Bishops if the Archbishops present a position the convention is that no other bishop votes against it. Surely individual bishops should speak up if they disagree!

It explains on the now controversial statement on gay marriage why no bishop spoke against the statement - but at what price?

Is it better to follow the convention or stand up for one's conscience?

I know bishops have such a difficult job. I suspect this timidity reflects insecurity in role. I worry that the priority can become keeping the peace and holding things together, and thats at the expense of speaking out the truth.

[ 06. December 2014, 17:52: Message edited by: Magersfontein Lugg ]

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I think names might be useful - in a strictly non-libellous way of course, to enable shippies to look at both sides of the argument.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I have to ask how Christians who are wanting to be open and tolerant survive within the CofE. The answer is they fit in where they have to, and they make a difference where they can. Rachael Mann is one example, who is in a serious disconnect with the churches positions, but is there to be an agent for change.

The problem is that the CofE has conventions, which mean that it changes slowly. That is very difficult for those who want to move quicker. for many, the choice is either a)stay within a system that is broken, and try to make it better or b) get out. The latter can be a very major commitment, so trying to initiate change, while accepting that the system is not wonderful is a tough choice.

I chose the "get out" option. I am not going to criticise whatever choice people make.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I don't want to be open and tolerant (OK, I'm CinW at the moment, but would be CofE if I lived there). I don't want to be open to and tolerant of these headship neanderthals. I want the buggers to either shut up or fuck off, and I would dearly love the Bishops to stand up to them. Have they learnt nothing from the dog's breakfast that has been 'alternative oversight' over the last 20 years? And the idea that the House of Bishops actually wants to make provision to ensure that ordinands continue to come from that tradition is beyond belief.

[ 06. December 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'd give rather more credence to and have more respect for the linked article in the OP if the writer moaning about the CofE were either a member of it or writing about his own church. He has as much title to complain as I would have to be rude about Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The SEC is close enough geographically to pick up a lot of the blowback from the CofE's poor decision making, and we have enough shared media and interchange of clergy to be well informed and aware of what is going on with our neighbours. I think the CofE needs people like Fr. Kelvin to articulate what senior clergy in the CofE won't, for fear of rocking the boat.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The problem with the CofE bishops and the message they are giving is that there are very few options left for members of the CofE. We can remain within in the church, and tacitly agree with what is happening. Or we can leave because there is too much for which we are saying "not in my name".

If every conversation with a non-Christian has to be hedged about with caveats about which actions I do and don't agree it becomes a total nonsense. If I'm too embarrassed to say that I attend church because I don't agree with much the church is doing, can I say I am a Christian? There rapidly becomes no point in being salt and light or a witness to faith.

I left last year. I don't know how many other moderates have gone too. But for me there is nowhere to go, so I no longer attend any church, other than occasionally.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The SEC is close enough geographically to pick up a lot of the blowback from the CofE's poor decision making, and we have enough shared media and interchange of clergy to be well informed and aware of what is going on with our neighbours. I think the CofE needs people like Fr. Kelvin to articulate what senior clergy in the CofE won't, for fear of rocking the boat.

Close enough I suspect that a SEC bishop could be chosen as an Archbishop of Canterbury just as a CiW one was. BTW under the proposed rules what happens when a woman is chosen as Archbishop of York or Canterbury (especially the latter) or are they hoping this generation will pass away before that happens.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I can't hold Enoch's views. It seems to me for the Scottish Episcopal Church the C of E is a little like the 'elephant in the bedroom' - significant and influential - and of course the C of E is often (like it or not) seen as the main representative of the Anglican view.

Also I appreciate often the outsider's (informed) view - the view from the sidelines can give illumination.

Returning to what I originally posted. My worry is about the silencing of dissent among bishops by protocols. Why don't those who disagree speak up more?

If some bishops were less timid they would find they are articulating the views of many many lay people too. The debates would be more wholesome and realistic, and the bishops would appear less out of touch and more prepared to engage in open discussion and debate.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Albertus [Overused]

The whole ghastly business of women in ministry has been an utter balls-up from start to finish.

The original fault lies with the late ++Robert: all he had to do was just go ahead and ordain a women and deal with the flak afterwards. He was advised - urged - to do this by more than a handful of people: instead he chose to play Hamlet.

When eventually the Synod allowed itself to approve women's ordination we then had the less than edifying spectacle of senior churchmen (Augustine Hooey anyone?) deciding to jump ship (sorry, 'cross the Tiber') and going through second 'ordinations'.

Why did the bishops of the CofE stay silent? If they thought by doing so they were encouraging some sort of spurious 'unity' they were mistaken.

The squalid deal to appoint a 'headship'-believing bishop is vile, underhand and an insult to the thousands of women who make up the majority of worshipping members of the CofE. That the deal has come about during the incumbency of the current archbishops doesn't surprise me, but where are the expression of distaste of people like +Salisbury?

And, as Albertus says above, it beggars belief that this tawdry deal is to ensure that ever more candidates for ordination come from the 'keep 'em barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen' brigade.

Come on, people: put this issue on the agenda of your PCCs and Deanery Synods - make a fuss, for God's sake.

Albertus is too modest to say so, but the CofE could (SHOULD) learn much from its smaller neighbour across Offa's Dyke.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

A major part of the problem is that the Church of England appoints its bishops instead of electing them. These people have no mandate from their own diocese, and owe their preferment to the center.

Result: placemen enjoying jobs for the boys. The few quality appointments that slip through keep quiet to fit in (which makes me wonder just how good they really are).

If people want this to change, how about starting a campaign in General Synod to replace appointment with election? Also call your diocesan, and ask to meet in person to discuss these issues (probably best not to call 'em a placeman, tho if the mood takes ya ... [Biased]

).

Timid bishops are just a symptom. The majority in the C of E have the power to change things.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[...] The squalid deal to appoint a 'headship'-believing bishop is vile, underhand and an insult to the thousands of women who make up the majority of worshipping members of the CofE. That the deal has come about during the incumbency of the current archbishops doesn't surprise me, but where are the expression of distaste of people like +Salisbury? [...]

I've criticized Nicky plenty, here, and over on Thinking Anglicans. Some agree, but the folk from his diocese vociferously defend him, even when I post up his own warning that he'll discipline clergy on the obvious dead horse (divorce and remarriage, natch ... oops, no, of course not). It's out-and-out denial, which evidence can't break through by itself.

The patriarchy bossman is a woeful indictment of where tolerance for its own sake will get you. When can we expect to see the segregationist bishop? Curse of Ham, yo!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A major part of the problem is that the Church of England appoints its bishops instead of electing them. These people have no mandate from their own diocese, and owe their preferment to the center.

Result: placemen enjoying jobs for the boys. The few quality appointments that slip through keep quiet to fit in (which makes me wonder just how good they really are).

If people want this to change, how about starting a campaign in General Synod to replace appointment with election? Also call your diocesan, and ask to meet in person to discuss these issues (probably best not to call 'em a placeman, tho if the mood takes ya ... ).

Timid bishops are just a symptom. The majority in the C of E have the power to change things.

I agree and I think that we've had enough of organizationally-knowledgeable safe committee men. This unfortunate situation can be remedied by abolishing the advisory committees and returning the nomination to Her Majesty personally. While we might perhaps encounter a surfeit of Sandringham curates, former military chaplains, and recycled German and Scottish clerics, surely it would not be anything but an improvement. And, when in due course Charles succeeds, a mix of inner-city social workers, organic farmers, and Athonite prelates will infuse the English church with fresh vigour and new perspectives.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

When did all this timidity begin? Bishops used to disagree and we knew it.

Remember David Jenkins - very outspoken some bishops agreed, some disagreed. He certainly stirred hings up and got people talking about belief, and society and stuff! And this was done from a position of sincerity.

We now seem to have a situation when many people suspect bishops who vote for something - (or at least don't vote against it ) may well not be being true to their own beliefs or conscience.

All for the sake of a united 'collegial' approach...

When was this thought the best way for bishops of the C of E to behave?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The squalid deal to appoint a 'headship'-believing bishop is vile, underhand and an insult to the thousands of women who make up the majority of worshipping members of the CofE. That the deal has come about during the incumbency of the current archbishops doesn't surprise me, but where are the expression of distaste of people like +Salisbury?

It is a time like this when I fall down on my knees and thank God I left the C of E when I did. And at the same time, I make a solemn vow never to return.

Flying bishops proved to be SUCH a good idea, didn't they? I cannot believe that the same mistakes are now going to be made on behalf of the Conservative Evangelical wing. It will cause endless tears in the years to come. All this proves is that the ConEvo Tendency has the centre running scared. And like all bullies, they will not sit back and settle for this small gesture. Once there is a permanent ConEvo bishop, they will make more demands.

You don't deal with bullies by giving in to them. That only encourages them.
(But then, the C of E has a systemic failing in understanding or confronting any kind of ecclesial bullying.)

quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
A major part of the problem is that the Church of England appoints its bishops instead of electing them. These people have no mandate from their own diocese, and owe their preferment to the center.

Result: placemen enjoying jobs for the boys. The few quality appointments that slip through keep quiet to fit in (which makes me wonder just how good they really are).

If people want this to change, how about starting a campaign in General Synod to replace appointment with election? Also call your diocesan, and ask to meet in person to discuss these issues (probably best not to call 'em a placeman, tho if the mood takes ya ... ).

Timid bishops are just a symptom. The majority in the C of E have the power to change things.

Electing bishops is not the panacea. It throws up its own problems. But these are nothing as to the problems that the C of E faces with the present way of appointing bishops. The present House of Bishops is utterly out of step with the majority of the rest of the C of E. How can they pretend to "lead" if they so patently cannot understand or comprehend the views of the people they want to lead?

Electing bishops may not solve all the problems, but it would be a start. Reforming how Synod members are elected should also be included. It is past amazement that the "ordinary" members of the C of E are so utterly unrepresented and ill-regarded by bishops AND General Synod.

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
When did all this timidity begin? Bishops used to disagree and we knew it.

Remember David Jenkins - very outspoken some bishops agreed, some disagreed. He certainly stirred hings up and got people talking about belief, and society and stuff! And this was done from a position of sincerity.

We now seem to have a situation when many people suspect bishops who vote for something - (or at least don't vote against it ) may well not be being true to their own beliefs or conscience.

All for the sake of a united 'collegial' approach...

When was this thought the best way for bishops of the C of E to behave?

I think it was during the "reign" of George Carey, who sought to make everything much more "managerial". Since then, the trend has been to appoint conformist bishops who fit the pre-determined mould. Mavericks and dissenters get a much harder time becoming bishops these days.

But I must admit that I do find it disappointing and deeply worrying that the known "dissenters" (such as +Buckingham and + Salisbury) have been so effectively silenced in recent months. What kind of pressure has been brought to bear to make this happen?

I do wonder if the C of E is heading for a complete and catastrophic meltdown:

a) In many parishes (and dioceses) the financial pressures have increased dramatically in recent years. In my last diocese, there were very few parishes that were in any way financially sound. Most were drawing heavily on rapidly reducing reserves to pay their way. It is not going to take much to push many of them over the edge.

b) Huge numbers of "ordinary" members of the congregation are feeling ignored and even embarrassed. Many are clinging on to their church allegiance by the finger tips. An increasing number are voting with their feet and quitting (making point a) above even more pertinent).

c) The clergy pension arrangements are still not in a good state of health (despite at least two attempts in recent years to stabilise them). My guess is that - barring a miracle - pension provisions will have to be scaled back yet again soon. The result of this will be ever increasing levels of anguish by parish priests who will see their retirement plans going up in smoke; and also a new demand upon parish finances at the very time when point a) above is already present.

It is really not going to take much more for the whole edifice to collapse. How many years will it be before a diocese declares itself bankrupt?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I am truly sick and tired of the church I love being held to ransom by the kind of con-evo that frankly doesn't give a shit about Anglicanism outside of GAFCON. They're interested in their own boys' (and their GLE wives) club, not the One Holy Catholic And Apostolic Church.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
When did all this timidity begin? Bishops used to disagree and we knew it.

Remember David Jenkins - very outspoken some bishops agreed, some disagreed. He certainly stirred hings up and got people talking about belief, and society and stuff! And this was done from a position of sincerity.

We now seem to have a situation when many people suspect bishops who vote for something - (or at least don't vote against it ) may well not be being true to their own beliefs or conscience.

All for the sake of a united 'collegial' approach...

When was this thought the best way for bishops of the C of E to behave?

We shouldn't be too nostalgic, Jenkins voted for the Higton Motion, for which he should never be forgiven. His dissent only went so far.

Let's face it, outspoken bishops have always been a rarity, that's why we remember them. In the 60s, Robinson and Pike were ostracized for the crime of publicizing what was uncontroversial in seminaries.

These days the Church of England has Alan Wilson, a shame he's not a diocesan with the power to act on his beliefs.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Electing bishops is not the panacea. It throws up its own problems. But these are nothing as to the problems that the C of E faces with the present way of appointing bishops. The present House of Bishops is utterly out of step with the majority of the rest of the C of E. How can they pretend to "lead" if they so patently cannot understand or comprehend the views of the people they want to lead?

Electing bishops may not solve all the problems, but it would be a start. Reforming how Synod members are elected should also be included. It is past amazement that the "ordinary" members of the C of E are so utterly unrepresented and ill-regarded by bishops AND General Synod.

Course elections aren't a panacea, but they are, as you say, a start. They'd need to come with a radical change of mindset, in which most people's willingness to be led ends, and they start driving change themselves and holding the bosses accountable.

But hey, I'm an anarchist at heart, I would say that.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

What I want to know is what the good folk of Maidstone have done to end up with the Official Misogynistic Headship Bishop? Admittedly they had Anne Widdecombe as their MP for many years, which might imply a taste for that sort of thing, but still. I dare say that Lewes is breathing a profound sigh of relief that it's someone else's turn to take one for the team.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
What I want to know is what the good folk of Maidstone have done to end up with the Official Misogynistic Headship Bishop? Admittedly they had Anne Widdecombe as their MP for many years, which might imply a taste for that sort of thing, but still. I dare say that Lewes is breathing a profound sigh of relief that it's someone else's turn to take one for the team.

There are certainly big swathes of the Lewes see that are dreading a non-headship bishop - plenty of con-evos there. Having lived in Con Evo Heaven there in the past, personally I see it as proof of God's sense of humour.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Folks, just a gentle reminder to keep this clear of Commandment 7 and libel territory, please.

/hosting

[ 08. December 2014, 05:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

If you don't believe the ConEvos are crowing and see this first bishop as a first step, go surfing and have a look at the blog of Lee Gattiss (Church Society director).

You might want to swallow some anti-nausea medication first.

And guess which other word is being used? You got it, "complimentarian" [Projectile]

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Thank you Eutychus for the reminder not to 'get personal'!

My puzzlement is to do with the principle that seems to exist among the bishops that they have to present a united front on some issues, and not be seen to criticise or hold a different view.

Consider parliament. There is healthy and open debate, it can be seen, it is recorded, we know how people voted. Some for, some against. But when its decided its what goes, and in the case of parliament it becomes the law - although afterwards parliamentarians can say, quite openly, I don't agree with it, and I didn't vote for it.

Not so the Bishops of the C of E in their House of Bishops. It meets behind closed doors. They issue collegial statements as if they all agree unanimously.

It leaves people puzzled 'Does no bishop hold my differing views?' people ask.

They never seem openly to dissent - just mutterings to friends at times saying they didnt actually agree...

So why not a bit more healthy open debate seen and appreciated by church members. Showing their bishops are wrestling with issues.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

After further discussion, we'll give this thread a run in Purgatory despite the close connection between conservative evangelical theology and a number of Dead Horse topics. If that becomes too constraining (and it might) then we'll move the thread to DH.

Meanwhile, Magersfontein Lugg has raised a proper Purgatorial issue.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Thank you Barnabas for the clarification, and re-focussing of the conversation!

The last post I gace outlines my concerns and questions on this.

I do suspect if the House of Bishops were more public it would help a lot. It would remove unfounded speculation, and encourage healthier debate than seems to be going on.

After all General Synod is public.

I can see that at times the House of Bishops may discuss confidential matters, like many committees do. Then that part of the meeting can be confidential.

Now however it seems to be a situation where no bishop can publically disagree against a stated view, and no bishop can vote against anything the archbishops suggest.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

In other words, the House of Bishops is beginning - at least publicly - to resemble the Presidium of the USSR in its openness, transparency and lively debate.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

"You may say that" l'organist! I don't think I'm putting it quite so strongly.

However, how does an organisation get itself to such a position (which goes back to my earlier question of when and how did this start with the House of Bishops).

It does seem in the past there were bishops who would openly disagree even if one didn't agree with their views. For example, Mervin Stockwood, once Bishop of Southwark, say, and I mentioned David Jenkins.

I wonder how change can be encouraged? I also wonder whether this 'don't disagree lets be collegial' approach is happening lower down too in the local dioceses.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

It can be laid at the door of the Turnbull Commission.

At a time when it seemed the entire world - or the western part, at any rate - saw the wisdom in devolving power down, or at least putting administration and management in the hands of a smaller number of people who actually knew what they were doing and trusting people at grassroots level, the CofE stepped smartly in the other direction.

It should all be laid at the feet of Turnbull because after the eponymous commission had finished its work (bad enough) he then went on to be a member of or head up virtually every other major committee in Church House - Ministry Division of the Archbishops' Council, Commission on English Cathedrals, Central Board of Finance, Church Commissioners, Archbishops' Council and Foundation for Church Leadership.

Did this man actually have any experience in, say, the running of a large company (preferably a multi-national) or even of working at middle (or above) level in a government department? Err, no.

What was his qualification then? Err, a minor public school education, Keble College, Oxford and Cranmer Hall.

Nothing special about him then? Well yes: he was moved to a senior diocesan bishopric AFTER it was revealed that he had a conviction for 'cottaging'. But by then, of course, he was (a) married, and (b) a darling of the ConEvo wing of the CofE.

You couldn't make it up.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Interesting thoughts l'organist.

However it raises, for me, more questions and further comments!

Firstly, you mention a 'commission' which must mean a group of people came to this line, not just one person.

Secondly, why was this approach accepted?

and thirdly, and more importantly, why is it still?

I can't help thinking the answer to the the third point is a spirit of timidity holding some bishops back from what they really think.

What saddens me is that the laity then begin to feel their differing views are not reflected in the episcopacy.

Pope Francis synod on the family showed up a variety of views among the bishops, and if I understand it rightly we know how bishops voted.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

First, we must be careful not to confuse the special Synod in the RC church and their deliberations with those of the CofE.

Second: why was Turnbull never questioned?

Well, first its implementation took place in accordance with discussions and deliberations of the Archbishops' Advisory Group - but that body included many of the people who'd been on the Turnbull Commission.

As for why people haven't questioned it all more recently: it is probably because finding out about it can be difficult, since the Turnbull Report that comes up if you google is that into internal risk assessment and control in the financial sector - yes, two Turnbulls, both asked to draw up reports on internal governance, one in the CofE, one for the FSA.

Even at the time the Report was published it was a damp squib and only people seen as church-going saddoes were concerned at some of its proposals.

And the implementation has been 'tweaked' by a variety of vested interests.

But the overall, centralising theme has stayed.

And those powers that were removed from the entirety of general synod have never been returned.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

ML, a few questions:-

First, to what extent does anyone take much notice of what the average CofE bishop thinks or says? Does the average member of the public even know which diocese they are in, yet alone who their bishop is or what he thinks about anything.

Second, to what extent are even you, who does know these things, influenced by what your own or other peoples' bishops think, say or do? After all if you automatically followed the bench of bishops, you wouldn't be making the complaints you are making.

Third, if you think individual bishops should be more given to speaking their own minds or shooting off their own mouths, is that only when they say the things you'd like them to be saying? Or do you accept that if this were so, they should be equally free to be opinionated about the things you don't agree with?

Fourth, is a bishop really like an MP so that you feel you should be able to expect him (and in due course, her) to reflect the views of their laity/constituency? Do you not feel that if there's anyone whose views a bishop should be seeking to reflect, get across to people, that someone isn't the laity, the clergy, his or her personal opinions or even the church, but God.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
ML, a few questions:-

First, to what extent does anyone take much notice of what the average CofE bishop thinks or says? Does the average member of the public even know which diocese they are in, yet alone who their bishop is or what he thinks about anything.

Second, to what extent are even you, who does know these things, influenced by what your own or other peoples' bishops think, say or do? After all if you automatically followed the bench of bishops, you wouldn't be making the complaints you are making.

Third, if you think individual bishops should be more given to speaking their own minds or shooting off their own mouths, is that only when they say the things you'd like them to be saying? Or do you accept that if this were so, they should be equally free to be opinionated about the things you don't agree with?

Fourth, is a bishop really like an MP so that you feel you should be able to expect him (and in due course, her) to reflect the views of their laity/constituency? Do you not feel that if there's anyone whose views a bishop should be seeking to reflect, get across to people, that someone isn't the laity, the clergy, his or her personal opinions or even the church, but God.

I'd be interested in knowing different peoples views but here are mine to Enochs questions.

1. Good point. But maybe more would listen if the views were more clearly given and from the heart rather than from the 'House of Bishops' says line.

2. [Smile]

Not quite - its about a decision making process I'm raising questions. Not about my own views and bishops. I may not be much influenced by bishops but actually when they seem to beliieve one thing and go along with another I wonder if their Church is quite worth being in.

3. Its about people speaking up with integrity (NOT shooting off mouths). I respect those who speak with clear integrity and thoughfulness. I may not agree with them.

4. No nor do I really expect MPs to do that. What I do hope is that there are a variety of views in Parliament which are freely, openly and publcally exptessed.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

L'organist

I appreciate that the conviction (1968) is in the public domain, but surely the issue is the content of the reports and the extent to which they influence current thinking about confidentiality of discussions? It looks like you're playing the man as well as the ball. Not sure that improves your argument.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Please note also this new thread in Dead Horses.

B62 Purg Host

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I have additional reasons for regarding Turnbull as a disaster. When I was a curate (back in the days when women could be deacons but not priests) he was my diocesan, and he came to address the group of clergy ordained at the same time as me. By the time he'd finished speaking he had the women in the group in tears, such was his sensitive approach to their ministry, yet he never noticed or acknowledged their grief. From there he went on to cock up the entire CoE in the way l'Organist describes. It beggars belief.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
L'organist

I appreciate that the conviction (1968) is in the public domain, but surely the issue is the content of the reports and the extent to which they influence current thinking about confidentiality of discussions? It looks like you're playing the man as well as the ball. Not sure that improves your argument.

It is quite funny, though. Apparently a celibate man living in a covenanted relationsip with another celibate man is an abomination against which Baptised people stand aghast but being caught by the fuzz, as it were, in flagrante with a farm labourer in a public toilet is no bar to being a fully paid up member of the great and the good. A few years ago I might have sympathised. Let him who hath not sinned cast the first stone and all that jazz. Now I feel a bit like David Tennant's Doctor in 'School Reunion'. "I used to be so merciful..." Just give me a rock and a clear fucking headshot. They decided that Christian charity was optional. Well, quid pro quo, Clarice.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Barnabas62 - as Callan said.

If Turnbull had kept his trap shut or behaved decently then one would show some forebearance - but he has consistently belittled women, especially women in the church and has made a point of promoting his male-in-the-image-of-Christ credentials.

His report, and its implementation, has been nothing short of disastrous, at every level. Quite why anyone thought this man had any - ANY - of the qualifications needed to take an overview of the church and its administrative functions and prescribe how its governance should be changed is one of the great mysteries. It might just have been plausible if the CofE was some small sect with a limited pool of people available and without the means to pay for anyone qualified to come in and advise.

But that isn't now, and wasn't then, the case with the CofE. In fact the CofE had access to free, or at the most cut-price, consultancy advice from many quarters, with at least one senior partner in every major management consultancy at the time a practising, communicant Anglican; the same held good for some of London'd biggest law firms. And that was well-known, especially by the bench of bishops; the head of the Commissioners' investment committee at the time tried to tell them (he's a friend), but they chose to ignore all and any advice.

Having made that first mistake they then compounded by putting the author of the report onto the very committees which were meant to be debating its recommendations - so no surprise that so much of it was just rubber-stamped or went through 'on the nod'.

The central structure of the CofE is top heavy - which is bad - and is stuffed with second (at best) or third rate people. The administrative function is old-fashioned, chaotic and sclerotic. The default position of many of the 'career administrator' clergy at Church House to anything new, innovative or concerning is to set up a committee to look at or discuss it.

Meanwhile, out at parish level there is a shortage of clergy, and many of those we have are either over-worked by or unsuited for pastoral ministry. The workings of the selection process are long-winded, over complicated, costly and of dubious worth.

And above all this sits the House of Bishops, busy doing the ecclesiastical version of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

L'organist, Callan

Actually, you make my point for me. What matters is the disastrous effects of the various implementations of reports. The evidence seems impressive that Turnbull's influence was a powerful factor in all of that, but then so was the acquiescence of others who went along with it. The extent to which these failings are failings of personal character, rather than signs of systemic fault within the governance of the CofE, seems secondary to me. Every decent system has checks and balances, designed to protect organisations against the implementation of the stupid. Surely that's the point. Either the CofE didn't have those, or those responsible for them were asleep at the wheel.

Short version. It can't be all about Turnbull, can it? There's some kind of systemic failure there for sure.

The OP appeal for greater transparency, which always includes the ability to say, publicly, "we got it wrong" seems to me to have quite wide application re CofE governance, despite the General Synod reporting structures.

[ 09. December 2014, 11:43: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

It can be all about Turnbull because so many of his recommendations have resulted in the neo-Stalinist style of governance we now 'enjoy'.

While some of his ideas were, at least on paper, good, others were not: the good ideas were not acted on and the bad were.

If you want to read a pithy and accurate critique of Turnbull go to http://trushare.com/05oct95/OC95TURN.htm its fair and balanced and will explain quite a lot of what people are complaining about. Interestingly, Stephen Trott ends by saying that true effective governance can only come when bishops are elected...

Hugh Craig also wrote a very lucid and easy-to-follow analysis of the Turnbull report which can be found at http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_109_4_Craig.pdf

Note: both of these highlight the way that synodical power - and particularly lay synodical involvement - was being curtailed (Craig uses the word 'castrated').

More telling - these criticisms come from opposite ends of the churchmanship spectrum yet they reach more-or-less the same conclusion about Turnbull.

[fixed links: preview post is your friend]

[ 09. December 2014, 21:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Both of those links are broken. [Frown]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Not any more.

Please preview post to avoid link disappointment and having to pay the hosts overtime (in this case, it was the superfluous punctuation at the end of each link that broke it).

/hosting

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Anything described as a report is a report to someone. And normally, that report is to a person, or a group of persons, who have responsibility for determining executive action on the basis of the recommendations.

I still think you're mixing up who was the agent and who was responsible. An agent is responsible for recommendations to the responsible people (one of whom in this case was himself I gather). One of the rules I grew up with was this one. Don't pass the implementation ball back to the reporting agent, even if you accept the recommendations, unless you are convinced that the agent has the necessary executive gifts. Turning theory into effective practice is a different kind of skill.

Those who receive reports have to own the recommendations first of all, decide what they want to go with. They are not rubber stamps, or if they are, they are failing in their own responsibilities. And if Turnbull's recommendations were accepted and he was given subsequent implementation responsibilities, then the responsibility for his freedoms of actions belongs with those who delegated to him.

And if that link failed, which is what I read you to be saying, then there was a responsibility beyond Turnbull for Turnbull. That's accountability 101.

Interestingly, Hugh Craig makes a completely valid point about accountability structures in para 3a on page 300. He also argues very well in paras 4 and 5 (p302-3) about the systemic problems with the Turnbull recommendations and expresses the hope that "the special Synod will not accept this report without at least major modification".

Now you will know the history better than me, but given those (to me) perfectly valid criticisms of the substance of the report, how did it get through? And don't those who voted or nodded it through despite those accountability objections bear some responsibility for the subsequent effects.

It can't be all Turnbull.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Hugh Craig's assessment seems remarkably prescient.

I particularly liked this:

quote:
This Report, perhaps inadvertently, takes the laity back to a pre-1919 position. With appalling arrogance, doubtless unconscious, the Report time and again overlooks the contribution that representative, elected laity can make. The present role of the Synod is subordinated to a National Council which can form policy largely without hearing the views of 99% of the Church. Departments can be formed to deal with various aspects of Church life, and their formation is discussed without reference to what part, if any, the representatives of the 99% are to take. Mind you, that 99% is required to give their money, and the National Council will tell them how the money is to be spent. This is not just saying to the laity, 'turn up, pay up and shut up', it is perilously close to the eye saying to the hand 'I have no need of you'.

(Emphasis added)

I have to say that - in hindsight - this is exactly what has happened.

Turnbull may have been the initiator, but there is no doubt that the then Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey) was a willing collaborator. And there is also little doubt that Church House et al warmly welcomed and encouraged these developments which would strengthen their hands considerably.

quote:
At a time when popular esteem for the episcopate is not particularly high, we are to become an authoritarian church - perhaps some would even think a monochrome one. After decades when laity in their droves have been voting with their feet, we are to tell them that their contribution - money apart - is not wanted, and their views do not matter.

All I would add to this is that "popular esteem for the episcopate" is even lower than it was when Hugh Craig was writing this.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Barnabas62

You seem unwilling to accept that Turnbull produced the report and want to put most - all? - of the blame onto others.

I'm not saying that Carey (and others) don't share the blame, but Turnbull came up with the idea.

Beveridge is, largely, praised because of the report he produced: he didn't put it into practice but he is still lauded for the report that bears his name.

Turnbull produced the report: he WAS on implementation/authorising bodies, it is very fair, right and just that he be blamed for the damage he has caused.

As for the comment about people at Church House trying to stop some of the nonsense: some did - they were silenced. Moreover, some senior diocesan staff tried to talk sense to bishops and the like - they too were silenced (I know of one who was bullied into early retirement).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I don't want to do that at all. I don't like the report at all. I don't like re-centralisation of powers and diminishing of checks and balances. Heck, I'm a nonconformist, not a Stalinist!

Of course Turnbull bears complete responsibility for the recommendations he signed his name to and he also bears complete responsibility for the actions he took personally in the implementation of his recommendations. But he got an endorsedment from a higher authority. And they are responsible for that.

He, (and probably others), were authorised to progress those recommendations. That really isn't a trivial point when it comes to allocating blame.

E.T.A.

My real reason for pressing the point are the issues and questions raised in the OP. Whenever they arise in any organisation, and if they are seriously based, they call into question both the ethos of the organisation and the systemic checks and balances in place to avoid over-secrecy or abuse of power. People in positions of authority and responsibility come and go. But ethos and authority structures have ongoing effects.

If you lump it all on Turnbull, you overlook any weaknesses of structure, ethos, or personal responsibility, which allowed the unwise aspects of that report to be implemented, with the resulting effects. That's precisely relevant to systemic issues such as authority structures and ethos, as well as historic questions of personal responsibility.

[ 10. December 2014, 08:15: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I am very grateful for l'organist in helping me understand the background to this, and also to Barnabas for the insights on Turnbull.

One point, which I know Barnabas has made, is however we got into this there doesnt seem will to move out of it, and so we muct question the system as it is today.

The meetings of the Bishops should surely be more open and transparent. Bishops should be encouraged to think and speak for themselves and show church people and indeed others that they have healthy, intelligent thought out views, and are prepared to disagree.

Some items may have to be confidential but its hard for me to see that that is very many at all, after all they will rarely be discussing individuals.

One of the problems of the C of E is it has all its synods etc, many (diocesan and denaery) seem rather weak bodies. Then it has these behind closed door meetings where power is firmly held on to (like 'House of Bishops' 'Bishops staff meetighs')

So I'm saying I understand what is being said about Bishop Turnbull etc. and it seems a sorry state of affairs - but why are bsihops today being so timid and not speaking for change in this area?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by Magersfontein Lugg

quote:
One point, which I know Barnabas has made, is however we got into this there doesnt seem will to move out of it, and so we muct question the system as it is today.

The only way left to the church to get out of this mess, legally at any rate, is for the bishops themselves to foment some sort of rebellion - there is no mechanism available to anyone else. And in the near 20 years since Turnbull precious few bishops have been appointed not in the centrist-dirigiste mould approved of by Turnbull and believers in his report. Yes, Holtam was sneaked through but no Harries or Chartres would be mitred today - I kid you not.

quote:
One of the problems of the C of E is it has all its synods etc, many (diocesan and denaery) seem rather weak bodies.

And thats just the way the powers-that-be like them!

Our deanery synod has an agenda set by ??? - think it may be the rural dean, but even he is amazed at items which members have requested for discussion which mysteriously 'vanish' from the agenda for the next meeting. 'Approved' items for our DS meetings are

finance - specifically getting the laity to give more and increasing parish share to the diocese
mission: specifically action plans to increase numbers
youth: proposals for putting into action a list of activities drawn up by ?
sharing of clergy
better use of 'plant' - are there churches which we don't need?

As an example of the lunacy of some of the above: the bulk of the deanery is rural with no bus service after c8pm (earlier in some villages), no pavements, no streetlights; but all parishes must draw up plans for after-school drop-in centres to be open till 7pm. Since most of the children go to schools in the nearest (15+ miles away) town they are reliant on school buses which have drop-off points worked out so they don't have to walk down unlit lanes with no footpath, and there's no flexibility of time since there is only one bus. You tell us how some mythical drop-in centre (held wherever) is meant to work.

Similarly on numbers: in one of our villages 80% of house sales in the past 5 years have been to second-home owners: so how is the church meant to increase numbers when potential attendees are plummeting?

Requests for discussion which have gone 'missing' have included: coherent diocesan policy on secondary school admissions and the enforcement of any rules across the board; opposing the sale by Church Commissioners of agricultural labourers cottages unless there is a covenant limiting sale to people who live and work in the area (all now sold as second homes). We also questioned the filling of a suffragancy but were told that was beyond our remit - and were then warned off when it was pointed out that with full complement of bishops each parish could, in theory, get a visit from a mitred one every 8 months, yet there are parishes which haven't seen a bishop (outside a licensing) for more than a decade.

At least 50% of our DS would like it to be a forum for genuine discussion but (a) it is top-heavy with clergy, which tends to inhibit some; and (b) it is very clear that this is not going to happen.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sorry, Magersfontein Lugg. I decided to make a late edit to my post, which crossposted with yours.

But thanks.

If the "Turnbull effects" need to be unravelled (and I think they do), what are the systemic changes which are required to do that? And what are the problems of ethos which created the difficulties? Those questions seem more important than searching for the guilty.

"Who is the agent and who is responsible" are always crucial questions in analysis of past faults and present effects. The answers clarify how you go about fixing things.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

quote:
One of the problems of the C of E is it has all its synods etc, many (diocesan and denaery) seem rather weak bodies.
And thats just the way the powers-that-be like them!

Doesn't stop those bodies crying stinking fish, passing motions in favour of decentralisation, lobbying, etc. Nor does it stop any bishops who think such decentralisation is important signing their names to motions of protest which they see as legitimate. Or even putting forward such motions themselves.

It's not declaring war on your own organisation to take actions which may embarrass the powers that be. If you believe their powers are indeed overweening, then you use the freedoms you do have to say so, put them to the question.

These are the classic actions of dissenters through the ages. Today, nobody is likely to get burned for dissent, for criticising the status quo, though it may not do a lot of good for their chances of preferment. But if you are concerned for principle, then to hell with ambition and status. That's a primrose path that has got a lot of good people into trouble.

In Northumbria Community terms, action along these lines is called "the heretical imperative". Don't be afraid to question the questionable.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

l'organist, that post was enlightening about my father's brief sojourn on a deanery committee, some years ago. Brief, because he felt that he could not honourably serve on it for some reason, probably to do with money. (He was a respected chartered accountant, so used to get nobbled for treasurer jobs.) We thought this might have been him being him - he had upset people in other circumstances (one non-CofE church objected to him suggesting it was not a good idea for a single elderly lady to keep the proceeds of the bazaar under her bed over the weekend, thinking he did not trust her, when he was concerned about her safety). It looks as though whatever he was objecting to was systemic, because that account sounds very familiar. The synod was being run by a clique with a different agenda, which was not obviously related to what could be expected from a church group. Dad wouldn't go into details. (He did feel that there was a class issue as well.)

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If the "Turnbull effects" need to be unravelled (and I think they do), what are the systemic changes which are required to do that? And what are the problems of ethos which created the difficulties? Those questions seem more important than searching for the guilty.

Let's have a stab at answering that.

First of all, bishops should be elected rather than appointed. As I've already said, I know this won't solve all the problems but it would at least open up the House of Bishops to a wider group of people. Candidates would have to talk openly about what they felt was important and what they wanted to do within the diocese.

Secondly, reform the way that General Synod works and especially is elected, so that more of the "ordinary" people in the C of E get a chance to be involved in the process and could even look to be elected themselves. Part of this reform would be to reassess the balance of power between Synod and the Archbishops' Council. Too much decision making is now done by the Council and Synod is just a rubberstamp machine.

Thirdly, reform Diocesan and Deanery Synods so that they have real purpose and meaning. Too often, they are just talking shops for obsessive.

Fourthly, reform Church House so that all who work there know that they are truly the servants of the whole C of E and not empire-building apparatchiks.

I am afraid that I don't know how to change the current ethos of timidity among the bishops. I would hope that having to undergo the rigours of being elected would encourage them to be bolder and more individual. But I think we also need to look carefully at the training and instruction that new bishops get.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I suspect, but I could be wrong that the situation l'organist is describing is more cock up than conspiracy.

The agenda for our Deanery Synod is set by the standing committee. The composition of the synod is dictated by Diocesan Synod in a way which is almost bound in our setting to give a majority lay membership. (All licensed clergy, one or two elected reps for all retired clergy in the Deanery, and 2 or 3 lay reps per parish.)

The Standing Committee is made up from Deanery Synod membership as follows: Rural Dean, Lay chair, treasurer (lay), secretary (lay), and then equal numbers of clergy and laity respectively (total committee of 10 IIRC)

If business is suggested and doesn't get on it tends to be because we have a secretary who can't normally attend synod meetings (someone else deals with minutes), and until recently have had to manage without a lay chair. So things getting onto the agenda have tended to depend on efficient communication between RD and secretary - especially if raised at a synod meeting.

The RD may be being evasive/surprised about the non-appearance of items on the agenda because he/she doesn't want to land him/herself in the soup or the synod secretary.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Oscar the Grouch writes:

quote:
Fourthly, reform Church House so that all who work there know that they are truly the servants of the whole C of E and not empire-building apparatchiks.

The difficulty with bureaucracy is not solely a church issue. In this case, I suspect most Church House staff (I don't know them at all, so am entirely speculating) identify their work (and self-promotion efforts) as simply being an expression of their servanthood of the whole church. I have seen in other bureaucracies how this can be changed by leadership and the setting of a good example. Aside from this, perhaps putting in a few good eggs, or rotating staff so frequently (and losing their expertise and any corporate history) that they don't have the time to build an empire, I really don't see this as solvable.

quote:
I am afraid that I don't know how to change the current ethos of timidity among the bishops. I would hope that having to undergo the rigours of being elected would encourage them to be bolder and more individual. But I think we also need to look carefully at the training and instruction that new bishops get

The rigours of election, I assure Oscar, simply set up another set of problems and, in any case, are nothing compared to the rigour of the prospect of re-election or defeat. More than training and instruction (although always a good idea, considering the procedural and theoretical background of most bishops), we need to look at what job we want bishops to do. With the size of most CoE dioceses and the resulting administrative complexity, electors will simply go for those whom they imagine will be better administrators-- I can provide Oscar with a list of Canadian bishops who got to be where they were on account of their schmoozing and élite-massaging skills, or hopes that they could resolve an administrative mess.

It reminds me of the continual debate on how to select members of the Canadian Senate or the House of Lords-- a useless discussion unless you first figure out what their job is to be.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I think trying to work out what the 'job' is meant to be could be a thankless task, although I do see the point you make.

It seems to me there have been some significant changes in recent years in what it is believed is wanted from bishops. There is an emphasis now on management, and other internal church matters. There is less talk about scholarship, prophecy and spirituality as qualities needed by the episcopate.

I suspect there is also more talk about importance of keeping everyone happy and, of course, 'mission' has to be added to most things!

What is puzzling is why some bishops who were thought to be outspoken don't speak up but follow the given line. It seems the system does something to them - its the 'removing the spine' I mentioned in the first posting on the thread.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

At the risk of getting flamed here, can I ask why you object so much to the appointment of a "Headship" bishop? Wasn't it sort of promised as part of the agreement on women bishops? Of course WATCH disagree with it, just as they oppose the appointment of Philip North an Anglo-Catholic opposed to women bishops as Bishop of Burnley.

The five guiding priciples governing the elevation of women to the episcopate include principle 4:

[4] Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures.

How would such people "flourish" in the spectrum of teaching and tradition if they are unable to have bishops appointed to look after their interests. Of are you looking to renegue on the agreement asap in order to force them out?

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

It seems to be a perfect example of good old Anglican Fudge to me. And where would we have been all these years, without Anglican Fudge?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
... First of all, bishops should be elected rather than appointed. As I've already said, I know this won't solve all the problems but it would at least open up the House of Bishops to a wider group of people. Candidates would have to talk openly about what they felt was important and what they wanted to do within the diocese.

Who would do the voting?

And is the sort of person who stands for election the sort of person one wants as a bishop?

quote:
Secondly, reform the way that General Synod works and especially is elected, so that more of the "ordinary" people in the C of E get a chance to be involved in the process and could even look to be elected themselves. ...

I'd agree there. The House of Laity lacks all credibility. It doesn't represent anyone. So there's no reason why the ordinary church members should take any notice of what it does or regard themselves as in any way committed to the decisions it purports to take on their behalf.

It won't have any credibility unless it is elected by all those on the electoral rolls in the diocese. How that would be done, and how people could sensibly know who to vote for, I've no idea.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I think I can understand why the evangelical 'headship' opponents of the priestly ministry of women, can justify their 'flying bishop'. It's because, as I understand it, a bishop to them is a manager, perhaps a pastor, but not a sacramental focus. So as long as they can respect their own pastor it doesn't really bother them to be in a church where most people disagree.

Maybe we are trespassing onto DH territory, but I have never been able to understand the F in F attitude. Central to Catholic theology is the belief in the bishop as a focus of unity, the chief pastor and the sacramental minister on whose behalf all priests function. To opt out of one's appointed bishop's jurisdiction doesn't seem very Cathollic to me. If the answer is, well most bishops have abandoned Catholic orthodoxy by ordaining women, then that means the whole C of E has so why are they remaining in it?

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe we are trespassing onto DH territory

Avoiding at all costs DH territory, this tortuous process has finally been resolved, according to the five guiding principles. Principle 4 allows the "out of date" traditionalists, both on the ConEvo persuasion and the Anglo-Catholics, noy just to exist, but to "flourish" within the structures of the C of E. Such a principle was confirmed in The House of Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself. I for one, believe it to be a just settlement to an issue which had gridlocked the C of E for a decade. But it requires that the minority can have representation in the House of Bishops. So I ask again: do those who so vehemently oppose these appointemts want to forclose on the five guiding principles and force out those whose views they opose?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
... it doesn't really bother them to be in a church where most people disagree. ...

It's rather more important for all of us, that we love one another irrespective of whether we agree with them, or they agree with us.

If we think that fidelity to our own personal principles is so important that it means it's OK to go into schism or drive other people into schism, we are wrong.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Enoch, Look elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. AFAIK, the C of E is the only church in the Communion not to elect bishops*, and you can find various methods there. I have not checked them all, but usually there is a need to obtain a majority in the separate counting of clergy and laity. In Sydney, it's a very complicated procedure involving 3 ballots - the first selects those thought suitable for consideration. The second narrows the field, and the third elects. Last time, there was major confusion as there was only 1 candidate who obtained a majority on the first ballot. Those who usually direct such matters had totally misjudged the mood of the Electoral Synod and their preferred candidate got nowhere near the votes on that ballot; a major set-back for the Moore College clique. In Newcastle, the next diocese north, it's more straightforward, but there is still a requirement for majorities among both clergy and laity. I have not looked at those in the other dioceses here.

* I know that formally a C of E bishop is elected by the College of Canons for the diocese, but when the members of that College are given their leave to elect, their task is made so much easier when they are told the person they are to elect.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

At least two provinces (Wales and Ireland) use electoral colleges over diocesan synods/conventions, but I do not know if they do better than the CoE in terms of the results. The winners of elections normally reflect the class and party of the electors. Administrators will happily elect administrators.

In days gone by, the South African church elected by the House of Bishops, producing some extraordinarily prophetic figures and the Irish House of Bishops, when the failure of the electoral college cast the choice back to them, elected some remarkable figures.

The few shipmates who have followed my posts over the years know my preference for that used by the Coptic church, where slips of paper with the names of the shortlist are placed in a chalice, and a child selects one of them on behalf of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

A few comments...

First of all it seems to me the current system in the Church of England of selection for bishops is producing bishops who are 'system' men. As I understand it diocese produce a job description. That seems reasonable, but how often will they speak out and say we want a prophet in our land?

I'm not saying go back to the old - prime minister - system! But, like private patronage, it could provide a check and balance. The question is how does the church get that now.

Secondly, a concern is that when these men become bishops they get drawn into the system and never appear to challenge it. For example the pastoral statement on same gender marriage. If we are to believe it all the bishops supported it, really? Why do they feel the need to say that. Some could have publically dissented but agree to go with the majority decision - a more credible situation, I'd suggest.

In our modern age of transparency why are some church committees so opaque - House of Bishops, Bishops Staff meetings... for example. Both of which are powerful bodies but unchallenged, indeed people outside are unaware often of who is part of them and how they reach their decisions.

The lack of transparency suggests a timidity in itself. - Hiding behind closed doors.

Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :

In reply to Paul TH and hoping to avoid DH territory...

What WATCH is concerned about is not necessarily the appointments as how they are to work. It looks like they might operate in a way which undermines the ministry of women and in the case of the headship post women generally.

Back on topic then, if a FinF type bishop candidate had asked the be consecrated by FinF bishops only (so no archbishop involved...), I hope the archbishops and the House of Bishops would say very firmly 'no'. Or will they just give in to keep the peace? (Ie keep FinF on board).

And likewise for a headship type bishop if the candidate asserted something dodgy about the Trinity...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
...I'm not saying go back to the old - prime minister - system! ..

Why not? By the late C19 it was on the whole being coscientiously administered and I'm not aware that anybody has suggested that the bishops appointed between, say, 1877 and 1977 (when the degree of prime ministerial patronage was diluted), were in any way worse than those appointed between 1977 and 2007 (when prime ministerial patronage was effectively abolished save in rare cases) or, even more so, than those appointed since 2007.

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

I have some sympathy with you Albertus, but mainly because I am a bit of a church historian! I don't think the Church of England, nor indeed Parliament, would want to return to that situation.

But you are right it did work usually in its day. It did produce bishops who were not timid and who were prepared to stick their heads up above the fence, and even be shot at. (Think - Barnes - not a bishop I like but...) I suspect some prime ministers chose suck bishops precisely because they had grit.

I also think they wrote and asked people who may themselves never have considered it. Nowadays it seems people apply, and keep applying to differing dioceses.

Looking to the future though I do think transparency in committees and decision making would help. I also feel calling bishops just a little more to account would be good. This could only be achieved successfully through transparency 'Why did you vote against that, bishop....?'

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Well, Barnes was an oddity, wans't he? The story that I'd heard was that Ramsay Macdonald wanted to appoint some prominent left-wing cleric but was told by his patronage advisers that they bench needed another scholar, so in a spirit of sod-you-then he went and dug out Barnes, who was a maths don! But you will probably know better than I whether there is any truth in that.
I think sectional interests in the CofE would not want it. But the great value of having prime ministerial input- at least in partnership with the 'professional' church, as it might be after 1977- was that it reminded the CofE that it was the church of the nation and not just of the enthusiasts (in both the non-technical and, alas, sometimes the technical sense) within it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Well, Barnes was an oddity, wans't he? The story that I'd heard was that Ramsay Macdonald wanted to appoint some prominent left-wing cleric but was told by his patronage advisers that they bench needed another scholar, so in a spirit of sod-you-then he went and dug out Barnes, who was a maths don! But you will probably know better than I whether there is any truth in that.

That's a similar story to the one I've heard about the appointment of the first Bishop of Liverpool. Gladstone, who was not only a native Liverpudlian but a strong Tractarian, had his candidate lined up, but was booted out in the general election and replaced by his rival Disraeli, who seeking to curry favour with the Liverpool low-church Tories appointed the arch-Protestant Ryle. Which has influenced the flavour of the diocese ever since.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
[QB] I have some sympathy with you Albertus, but mainly because I am a bit of a church historian! I don't think the Church of England, nor indeed Parliament, would want to return to that situation.

But you are right it did work usually in its day. It did produce bishops who were not timid and who were prepared to stick their heads up above the fence, and even be shot at. (Think - Barnes - not a bishop I like but...)

No Prime Minister would touch a return to that system with a bargepole, I am afraid. Every appointment would be minutely scrutinised by the press and the opposition to find reasons to bash the Prime Minister.

quote:
I suspect some prime ministers chose suck bishops precisely because they had grit.

I think an extract from your unpublished J.C. Ryle/ Benjamin Disraeli slash fiction may just have slipped through. Either that or predictive text strikes again!

quote:
I also think they wrote and asked people who may themselves never have considered it. Nowadays it seems people apply, and keep applying to differing dioceses.

The surest guarantee that someone ought not to be consecrated to the episcopate is the fact that they are angling for the gig.

quote:
Looking to the future though I do think transparency in committees and decision making would help. I also feel calling bishops just a little more to account would be good. This could only be achieved successfully through transparency 'Why did you vote against that, bishop....?'

Perhaps the Bishops could confine themselves to Confirmations and Ordinations and let the serious decisions about Mission and Ministry be taken in the parishes. I can defend my own views on the issues of... Neigh... BANG! and I might be able to respect my colleagues views in the parish next door even if I radically disagree with him but I would bet hard cash that no-one in the Church of England takes seriously the kind of triangulation that emerges from the Bishops. Either the Church of England will emerge as a body which respects the contribution of women to all levels of it's ministry or it won't. Either it will emerge as a body that is not relentlessly hostile to people who love somebody of the same sex as them or it won't. But we cannot, seriously, expect to carry on indefinitely splitting the difference and hoping for the best.

Herbert McCabe once observed that we do not know what Catholics will be like in the 24th Century but we know they won't be Arians or Donatists. It appears to be the view of the Bishops of the Church of England that we may not know what Anglicanism looks like in the 24th Century but we know that it will consecrate women bishops whilst finding an honoured place in its ranks for those who believe that a woman has no place exercising authority. It seems to me that at present the most desirable qualification for an Anglican Bishop is that one believes that James Buchanan was a better President of the United States than Abraham Lincoln. Or that one can meaningfully ask: "Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

Thinking about how the "House of Bishops" of the Church of England to the outsider seems a rather secretive and somewhat arcane body makes me ask who is in it? Or I suppose more accurately what is it - is it the House of Bishops of General Synod?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What those who've described ways of voting for bishops have outlined doesn't sound any better than the present system, and in many ways worse. It sounds as though it's always some sort of clique vote, not much more obviously legitimate than locking up 100 or so old men in a chapel until the right sort of smoke comes out of the roof.

Once you have any sort of voting, the legitimacy of the authority of those elected comes to depend on the credibility of the voting system, the extent to which those governed by those elected feel that they and people like them have participated in the choice.

Is there actually any way of electing bishops that meets that sort of test, or is genuinely likely to deliver better results than what we have at the moment?

What's described from Australia sounds even worse, as though there's a Sydney Prod candidate, an Anglo-Catholic candidate etc, and the cliquees exercising the franchise then vote strictly on party lines. The way the CofE operates, that would almost certainly happen here.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Enoch, your last paragraph suggest strongly to me that you have little idea of Anglicanism in Aust. The Moore College lot is basically confined to Sydney, and has some influence in NW Aust and Armidale. The last election here shows that its sway in Sydney is not what it thought - although Sydney continues to be predominantly low-church there is a range of variations on that theme.

Apart from that, elections in other dioceses does show AC candidates being elected in AC dioceses, liberal candidates in liberal dioceses and so forth, as you would expect.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Enoch, your last paragraph suggest strongly to me that you have little idea of Anglicanism in Aust. The Moore College lot is basically confined to Sydney, and has some influence in NW Aust and Armidale. The last election here shows that its sway in Sydney is not what it thought - although Sydney continues to be predominantly low-church there is a range of variations on that theme.

Apart from that, elections in other dioceses does show AC candidates being elected in AC dioceses, liberal candidates in liberal dioceses and so forth, as you would expect.

That's fair comment. I know next to nothing about Anglicanism in Australia apart from what I've read on the Ship. I'm probably reading your comments by projecting onto them how quite a lot of people would behave here.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
What WATCH is concerned about is not necessarily the appointments as how they are to work.

Again choosing my words very carefully, I think WATCH will do everything it can to undermine priciple 4 until it manages to destroy all opposition. Which is a pity, because when the legislation fell at the last hurdle in November 2012, it was because enough people perceived it to be bad, unfair legislation which didn't honour the promises of the past rather than that they didn't want the outcome. The 5 princilpes are balanced, fair and a working model for the future.

From my own pov, since being recently readmitted to the Church of England, I've decided not to renew my association with FiF. It's time divisive issues were laid to rest and the work of evangelising the nation continue. I have high hopes for Anglo-Catholic Future which accepts the developments in the C of E while seeking to continue in the spirit of the Oxford Movement. Perhaps even WATCH wouldn't object to that. It is, after all, a Broad Church

Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on :

And now comes news of an initiative to identify and train future bishops / senior managers of the church. Its another statement from the House of Bishops!

Its apparently based on a report to the House of Bishops which has not been published, the House of Bishops has allocated £2million of the church's money to it.

Are all the bishops in favour of this?
How did the voting go?
What differing views were expressed about it?
Why is the report not being published?
Where do they get this money from?
To whom are they accountable for what they spend?
Is this being thoroughly discussed by synods?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0