Thread: Libby Lane first woman bishop 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=028840
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Its been announced that Libby Lane is to be the first female bishop in the CofE.
Predictably she's been Dean of Women in Ministry for Chester diocese so it makes sense that she go to Stockport.
But wouldn't it have been better to have appointed as first woman someone who hadn't done the whole 'women's ministry' route, but rather who was a senior cleric because she was better than a man?
I'm sure Mrs Lane will make a fine suffragan but its not an inspired choice.
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
Maybe the first diocesan bishop rather than suffragan (if that's the right terminology??) will be someone more high profile.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Since the usual route is to be appointed a suffragan before becoming a diocesan bishop, that's unlikely anytime soon.
And, of course, suffragans don't go on the list for the House of Lords.
So its establishment 2 - 21st century church 0.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Since the usual route is to be appointed a suffragan before becoming a diocesan bishop, that's unlikely anytime soon.
It's not unknown become a diocesan bishop without first being a suffragan though. Two that spring to mind immediately are Stephen Platten who was Dean of Norwich before becoming Bishop of Wakefield and Michael Perham who was Dean of Derby before being Bishop of Gloucester. I'm sure there are others.
[ 17. December 2014, 09:54: Message edited by: Spike ]
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Since the usual route is to be appointed a suffragan before becoming a diocesan bishop, that's unlikely anytime soon.
It's not unknown become a diocesan bishop without first being a suffragan though. Two that spring to mind immediately are Stephen Platten who was Dean of Norwich before becoming Bishop of Wakefield and Michael Perham who was Dean of Derby before being Bishop of Gloucester. I'm sure there are others.
Justin Welby?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Yup. And according to the Torygraph quote:
[A] bill is being presented to the Commons on Thursday to suspend the current rules governing appointments of bishops to the Lords for 10 years to allow future female bishops to bypass their male colleagues into the upper house ... [I]t was hoped the bill would clear both houses and receive Royal Assent by the spring ... "[I]t is possible that you will have a woman bishop in the House of Lords by time of the General Election.”
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I suspect that as the first woman bishop, she will come under very intense scrutiny, and so someone who has worked on the issues, and someone who is relatively safe is a good choice.
The important and possibly inspired ones will be the next few. It is one of them who is liable to be the first diocesan, and the first to be in the house of Lords.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Yes, I'd agree. Safe low-profile appointment, lots of roots in the diocese, unknown outside it, makes sense on this occasion.
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on
:
Libby is indeed an inspired choice, not least I hope because the bishop of Chester has discerned the Spirit's guidance in appointing her! She is an excellent person who is well rooted in front line ministry. My experience of her is of someone who is capable without being deaf to the advice of others, who works collaboratively and who is concerned for mission and discipleship. She will be excellent and Stockport and Chester are fortunate.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This'll be interesting. I'm in Chester Diocese and 'under' Stockport.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I think that its great that a woman has been appointed who has had, broadly speaking, the same sort of background in ministry that a man might have had - a mixture of parish and diocesan roles encompassing a range of experience. In many ways better than one of the 'obvious' high-profile candidates who might have been chosen.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks, Charles, good to hear.
[BTW I really like the phrase 'unfocused wittering'! ]
Posted by Felafool (# 270) on
:
So far the best take on this is here on Daily Mash
The idea of dizzy Anglicans grabbing bannisters and backs of chairs. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
What slightly confuses me is that she'll be working with a diocesan bishop who, notoriously, was investigated by the police for homophobic hate speech. I guess it just means we can all be selective about the issues on which we cling to scripture.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
From the linked article:
quote:
However, no charges were made, and the police were satisfied that no offence had been committed
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
From the linked article:
quote:
However, no charges were made, and the police were satisfied that no offence had been committed
Without wanting to get too Dead Horse-y, I believe it was actually the Crown Prosecution service who advised no prosecution, having been approached by the police on the matter. Further, the Bishop was advised by the Chief Constable of Cheshire not to repeat the remarks he had made.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
According to the BBC news story a police spokesman said quote:
"The Crown Prosecution Service has been consulted at length and the Cheshire constabulary is satisfied that no criminal offences have been committed.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
the Bishop was advised by the Chief Constable of Cheshire not to repeat the remarks he had made.
I don't recall seeing this reported.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
According to the BBC news story a police spokesman said quote:
"The Crown Prosecution Service has been consulted at length and the Cheshire constabulary is satisfied that no criminal offences have been committed.
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
the Bishop was advised by the Chief Constable of Cheshire not to repeat the remarks he had made.
I don't recall seeing this reported.
From John Marsh's book, The Liberal Delusion, p.126:
quote:
Two uniformed policemen went round to his home and interrogated him; they sent a report to the Crown Prosecution Service recommending that he be prosecuted. The Chief Constable of Cheshire publicly warned the bishop to stop expressing such views. The Bishop never repeated them.
(You can find the quotation on a Google book search.)
[ 17. December 2014, 12:05: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Whatever he may or may not have said, the new bishop already works in the diocese so will already be aware of his views.
Not only that, but this thread is about the appointment of the first female bishop in the CofE. If she hadn't been appointed, the diocesan bishop's views would still be the same, so it's totally irrelevant to this thread.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What slightly confuses me is that she'll be working with a diocesan bishop who, notoriously, was investigated by the police for homophobic hate speech. I guess it just means we can all be selective about the issues on which we cling to scripture.
Not confusing. As ken always used to point out, there is no necesary connection between views on different DH topics. IIRC the Church of Uganda, for example (which believes very strongly that men in Uganda should not discuss Uganda with other men in Uganda) allows women to be bishops; while OTOH I imagine we have, most of us, run across rather misogynistic gay clergy.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Since the usual route is to be appointed a suffragan before becoming a diocesan bishop, that's unlikely anytime soon.
And, of course, suffragans don't go on the list for the House of Lords.
So its establishment 2 - 21st century church 0.
I don't follow your logic even assuming there is an establishment vs 21st century match going on (a cynic might suggest that we should be thinking of preparing for a 20th century church). I would imagine that they have decided that the appointment of a suffragan bishop is preferable as: a) the Archbishop is not immediately blamable and the concept of a diocesan bishop is likely too difficult for the popular press to grasp, b) less likely to get the evangelical male-headship folk excited, c) not wishing to eat up their time and energy with the excitement around a "high-profile" appointment, and d) quieting grumblers with the assurance that this is a working appointment, not a symbolic one. This would make life much easier for a woman diocesan bishop when that happens a year or two down the line.
As well, I am not sure that getting on a 7-9 year waiting list for a House of Lords seat is that much of an issue. But then again, with the Canadian Senate but 2km away from my keyboard, perhaps that level of excitement overwhelms my ability to assess the significance of other upper houses.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Whatever he may or may not have said, the new bishop already works in the diocese so will already be aware of his views.
Not only that, but this thread is about the appointment of the first female bishop in the CofE. If she hadn't been appointed, the diocesan bishop's views would still be the same, so it's totally irrelevant to this thread.
Are you saying that as an Admin or as a Shipmate? Because if it's as an Admin, my response is "yessir". If it's as a Shipmate, my response is that when I see an appointment in which M'lord of Chester has had a hand, I want to know where the appointee stands on that particular issue before I commit myself to raising three hearty cheers.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I don't see why the appointment shouldn't be considered inspired. Libby Lane was ordained in 1994 on the same day as her husband. She therefore has two decades of experience in the ministry, and may prove an outstanding candidate. I congratulate her and wish her the best!
Posted by Huts (# 13017) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
Maybe the first diocesan bishop rather than suffragan (if that's the right terminology??) will be someone more high profile.
Congrats to her!
While I had never heard of her, the comments on facebook of those who know her from that diocese seems to suggests she will be an excellent choice. It's also very wise to appoint the first female bishop as a suffragan. It means we will be used to seeing a women in purple by the time we get a diocesan.
It might just be me, but I don't want as my suffragan nor my diocesan who is someone 'high profile' whether they are a man or a woman. I want me bishop to be someone who has been chosen/called for their 'christian characteristics' rather than the characteristics the 'the world' considers important.
Whenever I see a newspaper article that references the person as 'one of the bookmakers favorite to be one of the first female bishop' I think, please not them! What do bookmakers know about who would make a good bishop.
There are plenty of female and male priest who would make excellent suffragan and diocesan bishops and most, if not all are not 'high profile'.
[ 17. December 2014, 14:15: Message edited by: Huts ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Welcome to my church world! My Episcopal diocese (Los Angeles) has two women suffragans, both excellent, IMO. One of them, Diane Jardine Bruce, has oversight over our little church and visits at least twice a year. And it is rumored that she will throw in her hat for election as our Bishop Coadjutor to take the reins when our Diocesan, J. Jon Bruno, retires in four years.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its been announced that Libby Lane is to be the first female bishop in the CofE.
Predictably she's been Dean of Women in Ministry for Chester diocese so it makes sense that she go to Stockport.
But wouldn't it have been better to have appointed as first woman someone who hadn't done the whole 'women's ministry' route, but rather who was a senior cleric because she was better than a man?
I'm sure Mrs Lane will make a fine suffragan but its not an inspired choice.
It IS an inspired choice!
Its a choice of someone thought to be bishop material who hasnt gone into the Archdeacon / Dean route, but is a parish priest. Inspired!
After all Archdeacons and Deans are different matters / roles to suffragan's. Libby Lane has experience in care of clergy, experience in parishes. Well thought of....
Its encouraging too given the rather silly recent report about 'grooming' people to be bishops.
Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on
:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
quote:
After all Archdeacons and Deans are different matters / roles to suffragan's.
Yes indeed. And a university friend of mine, who is currently one of the small number of women Deans, has always been absolutely clear that she never wanted to be a bishop. This isn't just the traditional "nolo episcopi": she hasn't been called to be a bishop, she's called to be a Dean.
Good luck and God bless to Reverend Lane!
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I hope this is not a dead horse topic, but I'll ask here until corrected by a host.
I'm ignorant of the logic and consequences, does this appointment change anything with male headship crowd or their flying bishops?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its been announced that Libby Lane is to be the first female bishop in the CofE.
Predictably she's been Dean of Women in Ministry for Chester diocese so it makes sense that she go to Stockport.
Her experience in her present role will probably make her well aware of the need to ensure good pastoral care for her clergy as well as the laity of her region. Her experience as a parish priest will have taught her to care for the laity. From an outsider's perspective, it seems a very sensible choice.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I hope this is not a dead horse topic, but I'll ask here until corrected by a host.
I'm ignorant of the logic and consequences, does this appointment change anything with male headship crowd or their flying bishops?
We think that, unlike the discussion of the appointment of a particular bishop, this probably is a DH question. Perhaps worth picking up there as a topic in its own right?
/hosting
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I welcome the fact that we shall have our first woman bishop within about a month but I am concerned to notice that in both of her previous parishes The Holy Communion is only celebrated once a fortnight, in contravention to canon law.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Well according to this:
Hale St.Peter
the only Sunday without the Eucharist as the main service is the third, and the Eucharist is celebrated every Sunday at 8.30, so I don't know if that would satisfy the provisions of canon law? It's not an uncommon service schedule.....(although admittedly not my preferred service schedule)
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
As far as I know Canon Law does not specify the eucharist should be the main service (although I would argue that, being the eucharist, it is anyway whatever time of day it is celebrated and however few the congregation). Multi-church benefices often alternate between Sundays but that is technically illegal I think if they are still distinct parishes as opposed to more than one church in the same parish.
The local conservative(-ish) evangelical parish to me has said Holy Communion every Sunday at 8.30.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
... the only Sunday without the Eucharist as the main service is the third, and the Eucharist is celebrated every Sunday at 8.30, so I don't know if that would satisfy the provisions of canon law? ...
I'm sure it does. Until the 1950s, the almost universal timetable in ordinary rather than Anglo-Catholic parishes was 8 am Holy Communion, 11 am Morning Prayer, 6 or 6.30pm Evening Prayer. Gradually between 1950 and 1970 it became more widespread to replace ONE Morning Prayer per month with a sung Communion. Having more than one Principal Service per month as a Eucharist is only really a development that follows from the adoption of the various permutations of alternatives to the BCP, Series II, Series III, the ASB etc.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
It all depended on the churchmanship pre c1970 or so.
If a church was 'high' then the Eucharist was the main service, but with Morning Prayer (Matins) also given a prominent place for those parishioners who preferred not to take communion.
A typical schedule for a 'high' church parish would be something like this:
8am - Said Holy Communion
9.15am - Parish Eucharist (sung with setting, etc)
11am - Choral Matins (hymns, setting of canticles, etc)
6.30pm - Choral Evensong.
As for Libby Lane's parish: a quick glance shows there are 2 communion service every Sunday, which is a hell of a lot better than many parishes around my neck of the woods.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
And Prayer Book evensong two Sundays a month! I am now definitely a fan of Ms Lane. Clearly not an alumna of Cranmer Hall for nothing.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It all depended on the churchmanship pre c1970 or so.
If a church was 'high' then the Eucharist was the main service, but with Morning Prayer (Matins) also given a prominent place for those parishioners who preferred not to take communion.
A typical schedule for a 'high' church parish would be something like this:
8am - Said Holy Communion
9.15am - Parish Eucharist (sung with setting, etc)
11am - Choral Matins (hymns, setting of canticles, etc)
6.30pm - Choral Evensong.
As for Libby Lane's parish: a quick glance shows there are 2 communion service every Sunday, which is a hell of a lot better than many parishes around my neck of the woods.
Funnily enough that used to be our pattern up until the 1960s when Mattins was dropped and the early Eucharist was dropped in the 1980's and we were middle of the road rather than High
Since the 1990s we have had a succession of High Church rectors and also are part of a larger benefice and that is reflected in the services. Under our present rector incense is used weekly which has got up some people's noses in more senses than one.......He preaches well though..... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
Here in Canada we have had several female bishops . It works out fairly well . So to Rev. Lane all the best and may your diocese grow
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
What's not to like about incense?
Quite apart from being an excellent inhalant if you have a head cold, it stops churches smelling of damp...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What's not to like about incense?
Quite apart from being an excellent inhalant if you have a head cold, it stops churches smelling of damp...
It causes me to have to leave the building - asthma.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Well according to this:
Hale St.Peter
the only Sunday without the Eucharist as the main service is the third, and the Eucharist is celebrated every Sunday at 8.30, so I don't know if that would satisfy the provisions of canon law? It's not an uncommon service schedule.....(although admittedly not my preferred service schedule)
I was looking at this
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I too am asthmatic Boogie, and have never had a problem with incense ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I welcome the fact that we shall have our first woman bishop within about a month but I am concerned to notice that in both of her previous parishes The Holy Communion is only celebrated once a fortnight, in contravention to canon law.
You are presuming that no dispensation has been granted under Canon B14A, even though, on the face of it, Ashley and Hale is precisely the kind of situation for which the Canon was drafted.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I too am asthmatic Boogie, and have never had a problem with incense
With me it depends. If something has already set me off (allergy or background infection) then incense (or other smoke) can be the last straw.
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on
:
Leo if you look again at the site you linked to you'll find that the present order of services were arrived at in 2011 whereas Rev.Lane took up her post in Hale in 2007
You might actually be reading too much into possibly as not all incumbents alter the service schedules. Whenever it's happened it's nearly always caused a howl of complaints even by just altering the time. Our service schedules have been altered but then they've had to be as we're a three church benefice with two priests. It's just the time though - the chief service in all three churches is the Eucharist - but even that has caused quite a few moans I believe
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But wouldn't it have been better to have appointed as first woman someone who hadn't done the whole 'women's ministry' route, but rather who was a senior cleric because she was better than a man?
Surely the best to be hoped for is that she has been appointed because she is the best person for the job?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
I am glad that the first woman bishop in the C of E will not be one of the "frontrunners", but someone rather unexpected. I know absolutely nothing about her but wish her well.
I am - however - rather concerned by the way this has been done. To me, it smacks of an episcopal race to be responsible for the first woman bishop appointment, rather than a concerted effort to introduce women bishops smoothly. I've said before that I think that the pressures on the "first woman bishop" are likely to be so great that it would make more sense to appoint two or three together, to ease the burden. There is no reason why this announcement could not have been delayed for a while whilst other appointments were being lined up.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Got it in one, OTG.
Worse, they decided to appoint where they did because it was going to be seen as a 'local' cleric being given a 'local' suffragancy, so not really an important appointment at all.
In LL they've got about as close to a she's a woman and she's a bishop but not really appointment as they can, hoping (I suspect achieving) for a result that some who are a bit iffy about female mitre wearers can assuage their qualms with the nostrum 'she's more a super rural dean rather than a bishop. Not very flattering either to the church or to Mrs Lane.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In LL they've got about as close to a she's a woman and she's a bishop but not really appointment as they can, hoping (I suspect achieving) for a result that some who are a bit iffy about female mitre wearers can assuage their qualms with the nostrum 'she's more a super rural dean rather than a bishop. Not very flattering either to the church or to Mrs Lane.
That'll be a bit more difficult a mental dodge once she starts doing stuff only a bishop can, like ordaining people.
Folks who are determined to be in denial will continue to keep their heads under the water. But eventually they'll have to come up for air.
It's a strange - and very poor - coping strategy.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Folks who are determined to be in denial will continue to keep their heads under the water. But eventually they'll have to come up for air.
It's a strange - and very poor - coping strategy.
They've remained submerged for 20 years and more; I think they're aiming for some sort of record.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
Leo if you look again at the site you linked to you'll find that the present order of services were arrived at in 2011 whereas Rev.Lane took up her post in Hale in 2007
I am pleased to have been proved wrong.
I certainly wish her every blessing in her future episcopal ministry.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I too am asthmatic Boogie, and have never had a problem with incense
Asthma can be triggered by an allergic reaction. You can have asthma that has other triggers and not that which is specific to allergy to incense. This is especially true if you are not allergic to incense i.e. your body does not think it is a foreign body to be fought. So both of you are speaking the truth.
My sister is allergic to kiwi, but that does not mean she cannot eat peanuts! Yet the reactions by those allergic to peanuts and kiwi are much the same.
Jengie
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I'm asthmatic too and love incense, but I'm, sadly, allergic to some incense; badly allergic and have a really nasty reaction, puffy eyes, very wheezy chest and struggle to breathe. The effects last several hours afterwards if I don't get out immediately. The last time I stayed in church with this incense I was still coughing the next day.
(I was allergic to the perfume one of our new tutors was using and was avoiding her as a result. Not good wheezing when talking to someone)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I think it's the charcoal that people are allergic to.
Take the thurible out of the church between uses.
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I am glad that the first woman bishop in the C of E will not be one of the "frontrunners", but someone rather unexpected. I know absolutely nothing about her but wish her well.
I am - however - rather concerned by the way this has been done. To me, it smacks of an episcopal race to be responsible for the first woman bishop appointment, rather than a concerted effort to introduce women bishops smoothly. I've said before that I think that the pressures on the "first woman bishop" are likely to be so great that it would make more sense to appoint two or three together, to ease the burden. There is no reason why this announcement could not have been delayed for a while whilst other appointments were being lined up.
That rather assumes that Libby Lane is incapable of handling her new position without the 'backup' of a number of other women in the same position - perhaps something of an insult to her?
Really, what will these pressures be? Being a senior woman at meetings - surely nothing new to her. A few articles in the tabloids maybe, no more than other bishops have earned by operating mouths before engaging brains, some sniping on Facebook and various blogs by those who have nothing better to do. Unless you live in her see, you're really not going to have a lot to do with her, nor she with you, so let's just let her get on with the job.
I think we're only talking a matter of a month, maybe two, before another is announced. In a year's time it won't make the slightest difference. AIUI the see of Stockport has been vacant a fair time, and was overdue for an appointment. I'm also given to understand that certain men had already been interviewed, and considered not right for the post. So I'm not sure how the sense of a 'race' stands: it's hardly as if posts are being hurriedly emptied out in order that a woman can be stuffed in.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
There have, of course, been female bishops before. See: this list
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
That rather assumes that Libby Lane is incapable of handling her new position without the 'backup' of a number of other women in the same position - perhaps something of an insult to her?
Not at all. I said the same thing well before any names were suggested and would have made the same comment about anyone who ended up being the first woman bishop in the Church of England.
Anything she says or does will be scrutinised intensely. I know that I wouldn't want that kind of pressure. Such scrutiny was always going to happen. As far as I can see, the only way to reduce it - even marginally - would have been to have three or more names presented at the same time.
I don't know Libby Lane at all. She (and her family) may well be able to handle this easily. What I am saying is that all steps should have been taken to ensure that such an impact was lessened, if at all possible. At the moment, I don't see that.
Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on
:
HCH wrote
quote:
There have, of course, been female bishops before. See: this list
That list omits several important Australian appointments and elections
2012 Rev Genieve Blackwell appointed assistant bishop of Canberra-Goulburn
Rev Alison Taylor appointed assistant bishop of Brisbane
2013 Rev Dr Sarah Macneil was elected and installed 2014 as diocesan bishop of Grafton
Bishop Kay Goldsworthy elected diocesan bishop of Gippsland to be installed in 2015
Bishop Genieve Blackwell appointed assistant bishop of Melbourne on the retirement of Bishop Barbara Darling
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I don't know Libby Lane at all. She (and her family) may well be able to handle this easily. What I am saying is that all steps should have been taken to ensure that such an impact was lessened, if at all possible. At the moment, I don't see that.
Is there any reason why you should see it? I'd have thought that steps like that should be taken quietly and privately, not out in public.
Thanks for the update Barnabas Aus. I had missed the appointment of + Genieve to Melbourne.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
If Libby Lane has agreed to take the post, then she has surely considered the pitfalls as well as the joys before saying yes?
I wish her well and hurrah for the folk of Stockport and its surroundings; they've waited long enough.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0