|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: CofE alternative provision ...
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE] Hmm - while it's always attractive to shoot the messenger, are you really sure that the vote isn't an accurate reflection of the view of the people in the pews? That something like 37% of the people in the pews are of opposed to women bishops seems possible... Given the average age of a CofE member is way above that of the population, I think it may well be accurate. BUT WE DON'T KNOW. And to assume that it's just a few diehard conservatives who've blocked this against the will of 90+% is dangerous.
And if it was an accurate reflection of the views in the pews, then what? Would you accept that - or tell them that they are suffering from a 'false consciousness' and force it through regardless?
Joking aside--I don't think the latter is as crazy as you seem to make it. Given the chance, the UK public would bring back the noose; however, people who know better, know better. It's a tricky business, I agree.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, fair enough.
As for the following:
D - "I think this"
G - "I thought you'd say that because you're a charismatic evangelical and you haven't thought the issue through as much as me."
D - "Thanks. Bye."
Well, yes, I am delighted to see the level of self-awareness you are displaying in your posts ...
You would have found a way to work the word "binary" in there somehow. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
What are you blithering on about?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who...don't agree with me cause they're stupid
Fixed that for you.
Don't do that kind of fixing again, even as a pointed joke. Its generally reckoned to be a bit of a C3 linecross to muck about with Shipmates' quotes to make a point. And in this case it's clearly a personal dig anyway, not a comment on a post. Take it to Hell if you want, but leave it out here.
Here's the original quote, to save Shipmates looking it up.
quote:
Actually, I'm far happier out of church entirely. That way I do not have to deal with those who are not prepared to engage with ideas not covered by the Bible or remove my God given brains at the door.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Apologies to Curiosity killed and the hosts. It was intended as a joke, but I understand if it crossed the line.
Sorry. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I am increasingly coming to believe that giving the laity a vote is a bad idea.
Before we get all heated up about that, I am NOT saying that clergy have a more direct line to God than laity. But at least clergy are educated and know what the basic doctrines of the faith are- well, they are more likely to know anyway. They might have been lying through their teeth, but at least the clergy have sworn to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church. What are the qualifications for being a lay delegate besides getting elected? I would be surprised if most lay delegates could list the 10 commandments.
So I suppose I oughtter say that there should be much higher standards for who can be a lay delegate. Then again, whinging about catechetical standards is so old hat these days...
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
What are you blithering on about?
It's common practice in secular business to oust people who won't get with a programme of change. You seem to you want the church to operate that way, even if the people are bound by conscience out of regard to the scriptures to object to the changes being advocated.
[ 21. November 2012, 14:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yes, Beeswax Altar, the word 'binary' would undoubtedly have come up in the putative new thread In Which Gamaliel And Daronmedway Share a Pipe.
It would probably feature in the first paragraph of my opening post.
Along with the term 'over-egged.'
The use of both terms would be highly appropriate, if irritating for the reader.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That might very well be the case both in secular business and in churches too - I've certainly seen both.
I'd suggest that such things aren't the province of any one tradition or emphasis, though. The liberals are capable of such things, certainly - but so are the evangelicals.
You've only got to hear what happened to Chorister's choir down in Cream-Tea Land when an evangelical charismatic incumbent arrived and decided that surpliced choirs and choral music wasn't what the Almighty wanted to hear on a Sunday morning ...
These things cut all ways round and from what I can see evangelicals and charismatics are no less immune to behaving like this than liberals, catholics and anyone else we might care to mention.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Beeswax Altar, the word 'binary' would undoubtedly have come up in the putative new thread In Which Gamaliel And Daronmedway Share a Pipe.
It would probably feature in the first paragraph of my opening post.
Along with the term 'over-egged.'
The use of both terms would be highly appropriate, if irritating for the reader.
And I would most likely respond with accusations of skeptical intransigence and presumptuous misconstruction.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That might very well be the case both in secular business and in churches too - I've certainly seen both.
I'd suggest that such things aren't the province of any one tradition or emphasis, though. The liberals are capable of such things, certainly - but so are the evangelicals.
You've only got to hear what happened to Chorister's choir down in Cream-Tea Land when an evangelical charismatic incumbent arrived and decided that surpliced choirs and choral music wasn't what the Almighty wanted to hear on a Sunday morning ...
These things cut all ways round and from what I can see evangelicals and charismatics are no less immune to behaving like this than liberals, catholics and anyone else we might care to mention.
My gawd, I agree with Gamaliel. I'm going to go lay down for a bit.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...so I have to attend a church where things I strongly believe to be untrue and theologically incorrect are preached from the pulpit? And I'm being ridiculous to make decisions on theological belief? Wow, just wow!
Interesting. There are conservative members of the church who think in exactly the same way concerning exactly the same issues.
Indeed. And they go off and find churches that agree with them. Point?
Really? You really endorse an ecclesial project which habitually - and with increasing aggression - seeks to innovate people out of its fellowship? How arrogant.
What are you blithering on about?
It's common practice in secular business to oust people who won't get with a programme of change. You seem to you want the church to operate that way, even if the people are bound by conscience out of regard to the scriptures to object to the changes being advocated.
Erm no. I'm making an observation, not advocating anyone should take any particular course of action.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Actually, I was observing that generally people go to the church in the next parish along if they can't cope with the theology being promoted in the pulpit of their local gaff, rather than thinking about swimming of Tibers or any other available rivers. I've done it myself when the unyielding evangelicalism of one vicar just became too much.
[ 21. November 2012, 15:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Please bear in mind that I ask because I don't know, not because I'm scoring a point. I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives. For a conservative anglo-catholic the criteria have to do with sacramental validity; without the sacraments to act as one's test, and indeed to necessitate the various forms of accommodation which have been made, what does one use?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Please bear in mind that I ask because I don't know, not because I'm scoring a point. I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives. For a conservative anglo-catholic the criteria have to do with sacramental validity; without the sacraments to act as one's test, and indeed to necessitate the various forms of accommodation which have been made, what does one use?
My experience - and it is only that - is that evangelicals tend not to be particularly denominationally minded and will generally attend any "bible believing" church that they are a fit for in terms of what house groups, other meetings and whatnots it provides. But that might just be the little corner of evangelicalism I'm familiar with. But it wasn't specifically finding another denomination that I had in mind.
[ 21. November 2012, 15:26: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
A decade ago, it was predicted that the Church of England would have women bishops by 2008. And so it would have had, had not the equal opportunities squad turned a deeply held theological and ecclesiological objection into an issue of rights and equality. Although ++ Rowan must feel devastated to end his incumbancy on this note, in his speeches and proposals to the General Synod over the last few years, he has understood that a structural solution must be found for dissenters. ++ Sentamu has, today, commented that proper provision for opponents was what was lacking in the proposed legislation, and that it's the answer to success in the future.
It doesn't matter whether it's just a beefing up of the Act of Synod to accommodate the reality of women in the House of Bishops, or if you call it a Third Province, it needs to be structural, and legal, as FiF has said all along. The Church in Wales found itself in a similar position, and now it is preparing two bits of legislation, one which provides for women bishops and the other, linked, which makes proper provision for opponents. The C of E will now have to go back to the drawing board, think this through, and come up with something which honours the promises made in the 90's about the time honoured place of loyal Anglicans. Then it will get the women bishops which the majority of its members want.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
[I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives.
In theory they would be looking for orthodox, Bible-based, inspiring, preaching; and an unambiguous commitment to sound doctrine. In practice, like most others, many would want somewhere they felt at home and comfortable, and it would often be more likely to be personal relationships than doctrines that attracted them to a church. They would want a church where they can receive both teaching and encouragement.
And, seriously, lots of evangelicals would pray about it and ask God to lead them to a church where they can be of some use.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience - and it is only that - is that evangelicals tend not to be particularly denominationally minded and will generally attend any "bible believing" church that they are a fit for in terms of what house groups, other meetings and whatnots it provides.
Seems true enough to my experience as well.
Infant Baptism might be an issue for some, in both directions, but in practice a lot of evangelical churches manage to work round differences over that. In the 1970 & 80s and maybe even 90s arguments over "gifts of the spirit" were a church-breaking issue for many, and once upon a time disputes about Calvinism vs. Arminianism would have been important.
But as others said even those sorts of issues are an influence on choice of church, not choice of denomination.
The idea thatr notions like "valid sacraments" or "apostolic succession" might be important for choosing which church to go to would simply never occur to most evangelicals, whether theologically conservative or not.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the promises made in the 90's about the time honoured place of loyal Anglicans.
I hope you're not suggesting that those of us who are pro-OoW are disloyal Anglicans.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hope you're not suggesting that those of us who are pro-OoW are disloyal Anglicans.
Not in the least! The term "both integrities" was once used to describe loyal Anglicans, and it still applies.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Can anyone shed any light on why only the one proposal could be put to the synod ? Other options with different sorts of provision could have been put together which those not believing in women bishops would have accepted. Of course these might have been voted down by supporters of women bishops but it seems very wrong not to verify if there was any proposal which would have passed by the necessary majority.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Thanks Paul! I didn't really think you were suggesting that, I was just being pedantic.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I hope you're not suggesting that those of us who are pro-OoW are disloyal Anglicans.
Not in the least! The term "both integrities" was once used to describe loyal Anglicans, and it still applies.
There always was a huge problem in this term, and this is what has come to tear massive chunks out of the ecclesial posterior. You can't have two wholenesses in one whole, it simply won't fit. Particularly if either of them is going to be utterly scrupulous about their wholeness, as in the "tainted hands" argument. It is just about possible in one generation to take that kind of logic forward (N.B. personally I absolutely abhor it, but it is a favoured logic of FiF and friends, AIUI), but once you get into multiple generations and multiple strands of episcopacy, it rapidly becomes an impossible mess, if it wasn't one already.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I'm not entirely sure that my experience of church choirs in evangelical churches is particularly relevant to this thread (although I appreciate Gamaliel's kindness in thinking of me).
Regarding women in senior roles in the church, I think that what people want to see is a mixture of men and women in those roles, not whether a certain quota of those men have fixed ideas on OOW. Most men have found that in actually working with women in senior roles that their former fears have been overcome. How else to have had so many bishops and clergy in favour during the vote?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
daronmedway: Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
Please bear in mind that I ask because I don't know, not because I'm scoring a point. I genuinely don't know what criteria a conservative evangelical would operate to test the alternatives. For a conservative anglo-catholic the criteria have to do with sacramental validity; without the sacraments to act as one's test, and indeed to necessitate the various forms of accommodation which have been made, what does one use?
Continuing Anglicans? certainly there's a group locally or was last time I looked. It's aligned with GAFCON
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Can anyone shed any light on why only the one proposal could be put to the synod ? Other options with different sorts of provision could have been put together which those not believing in women bishops would have accepted. Of course these might have been voted down by supporters of women bishops but it seems very wrong not to verify if there was any proposal which would have passed by the necessary majority.
Forgive the double posting, (ETA - it was a double posting when I started writing it) but my answer to this question of follows seamlessly from my last remarks. I'm not sure, but it would surprise me if the reason for this isn't precisely what was learned from the "two integrities" cul-de-sac created by the OoW measure. We need a way of bringing about the consecration of women as bishops without creating a huge, unwieldy framework or a set of weasel words which can be used by those thus minded to hold the rest of the church to ransom in perpetuity. Some level of grace and provision is needed, but it must be seen and accepted by all that the consecration of bishops regardless of gender is the settled will of the church as a body. Those who dissent should be dealt with graciously, but reproducing that mess would be disastrous.
[ 21. November 2012, 16:10: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead
I am
# 21
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
You can't have two wholenesses in one whole, it simply won't fit.
Somewhat tangential, but there seems to be an irony in that this a large part of the basis of Christianity. OK, the monophysites might not agree, but still...
[ 21. November 2012, 16:13: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
--------------------
At times like this I find myself thinking, what would the Amish do?
Posts: 9123 | From: Near where I was before. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Can anyone shed any light on why only the one proposal could be put to the synod ? Other options with different sorts of provision could have been put together which those not believing in women bishops would have accepted. Of course these might have been voted down by supporters of women bishops but it seems very wrong not to verify if there was any proposal which would have passed by the necessary majority.
Lots of different proposals have come before synod over the past few years. Every one has been voted down. Each new proposal seems less generous that the previous one. they should have seen this coming.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
My own experience of con evo tallies with what Karl and Ken say. I became a Christian at St Helen's Bishpsgate, and almost all of my friends there were very relaxed about denomination, often more comfortable attending a Baptist or Methodist church when on holiday rather than Anglican. Baptist churches were particularly popular when moving on to a local church. (I'm just saying this for info, I'm not suggesting they should leave). Not all con evo are the same though.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Fool of the Ship, I understand the argument you are making but shouldn't that be the synod's choice ? Whether to go for something complicated that would have passed now I mean.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[ots of different proposals have come before synod over the past few years. Every one has been voted down. Each new proposal seems less generous that the previous one. they should have seen this coming.
Exactly. The anti-women party has been refusing to interact in real way and has campaigned against every proposal no matter how tolerant. So they have manouvred the majority into apparently less tolerant proposals. And their refusal is really frustrating for those of us who want to find a way to allow them to stay.
Its really unclear whether this was the plan all the time - block, block, block for as long as possible then run away to Rome - or whether they have over-stretched themselves, tried one political manouvre too many, and shot themselves iun the foot.
Either way, the blame for this doesn't lie with either feminists or evangelicals. Its the "foward in faith" and similar refuseniks all the way.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not so convinced that there's a big Reform rump at work here. They can be a vocal minority but they are a minority. My guess would be that the weight of the objection is coming from the FiF types, but I don't know why I think that ... it's just a hunch ...
Or else it might be an example of scepticism and deliberate misconstruction on my part ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
You've got outfits like the FoCA and the AMiE but, frankly, they won't amount to anything with the likes of Nazir-Ali involved. These conservative ecclesio-political experiments will never be able to provide decent pastoral care to presbyters working at a parochial level. And they won't be offering - because they really aren't interested in offering - genuinely apostolic episcopal leadership to normal, theological conservative Anglican churches. They're just interested in keeping their con-evo flagships sailing in leafy white suburbs and making sure that the filthy liberals don't get any of their parish share.
Frankly, conservatively minded parish churches and the ministers of those churches are being doubly shafted in this whole mess. The leading lights of these con-evo pity parties all come from posh churches with inflated corporate egos and emotionally stunted public schoolboy leaders, and the bible-dodging progressives are exploit every ecclesial structure and canonical loophole in order to push the imaginations of their own hearts regardless of anyone who holds biblical convictions to the contrary. The whole she-bang is a shameful, ridiculous travesty.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My experience - and it is only that - is that evangelicals tend not to be particularly denominationally minded and will generally attend any "bible believing" church that they are a fit for in terms of what house groups, other meetings and whatnots it provides. But that might just be the little corner of evangelicalism I'm familiar with.
I'm an outsider, and probably hopelessly confused, but if English Anglican evangelicals are, like most other evangelicals in this country, fairly congregationalist in outlook, then why would they try to influence the entire denomination? It might make sense if the whole of the CofE generally evangelical, but if that's not the case then any attempt to 'take over' on a particular issue would appear to undermine their congregationalist impulses.
There must be a certain class of Anglican evangelical who's hopelessly torn between the idea of evangelicalism as chosen by the 'true believer' or the 'gathered church', and the idea of an evangelicalism that has to be imposed on the majority as a diktat from 'above' (however that's defined). Or maybe these two evangelical perspectives rarely ever come into contact with each other?
I apologise for my lack of understanding.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Because Conservative Evangelicals take their ordination vows seriously. They believe that the vow of canonical obedience to their bishop actually means something.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[ots of different proposals have come before synod over the past few years. Every one has been voted down. Each new proposal seems less generous that the previous one. they should have seen this coming.
Exactly. The anti-women party has been refusing to interact in real way and has campaigned against every proposal no matter how tolerant. So they have manouvred the majority into apparently less tolerant proposals. And their refusal is really frustrating for those of us who want to find a way to allow them to stay.
Its really unclear whether this was the plan all the time - block, block, block for as long as possible then run away to Rome - or whether they have over-stretched themselves, tried one political manouvre too many, and shot themselves iun the foot.
Either way, the blame for this doesn't lie with either feminists or evangelicals. Its the "foward in faith" and similar refuseniks all the way.
I'm sorry Ken. That's completely untrue. And I say that as someone who has a far from universally positive view of FiF.
It was not the FiF lot who voted down the Archbishops' Amendment, for example.
If we discount separate province as unrealistic from the start, there were models for separate dioceses and for TEA (Transferred Episcopal Arrangements) put to Synod in 2008. Again, it was NOT the FiF lot who voted this down.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Like QLib, the reason I'm now with the Quakers is the arguments raised over the initial ordination of women. I miss the singing as much as the Eucharist, which I always found less satisfying than the Communion in the Congregationalists (I liked partaking simultaneously as a sign of being one in Christ). I won't go into the particular arguments that drove me out, but I'm hearing the echoes now.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because Conservative Evangelicals take their ordination vows seriously. They believe that the vow of canonical obedience to their bishop actually means something.
Well, do they really? If their bishop told them that, for example, God wanted them to favour people under 50 (or over that age, or dark-haired, or over 6 feet tall) would they obey? There must be some points on which any priest, Conservative Evangelical or otherwise, might decide they cannot follow what their bishop wants. The precise points just differ from priest to priest, that's all; no?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Canonical obedience.
Okay, I don't what that means precisely but how about if a bishop told their priests to favour certain groups of people for lay leadership positions like, I don't know, children and youth stuff, music stuff, caretaking stuff. Wouldn't any of that qualify as 'canonical obedience'?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Canonical obedience.
Okay, I don't what that means precisely but how about if a bishop told their priests to favour certain groups of people for lay leadership positions like, I don't know, children and youth stuff, music stuff, caretaking stuff. Wouldn't any of that qualify as 'canonical obedience'?
Canonical obedience is more about the protection of the clergy than it is about the power of the bishop. It basically means that clergy don't have the baptise cats just because their bishop says so. It's about the right of the clergy to be under biblically orthodox apostolic oversight.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
I'm sorry Ken. That's completely untrue. And I say that as someone who has a far from universally positive view of FiF.
It was not the FiF lot who voted down the Archbishops' Amendment, for example.
If we discount separate province as unrealistic from the start, there were models for separate dioceses and for TEA (Transferred Episcopal Arrangements) put to Synod in 2008. Again, it was NOT the FiF lot who voted this down.
The Archbishops' Amendment was a poorly constructed, last minute offering. Voting it down was not an attack on FiF et al, but the only sane thing to do. It may have been well-meant but it was hopelessly vague and would have been a hostage to all sorts of fortune.
The separate province/separate dioceses (which are really just the same idea) was also a complete non-starter. The idea makes no theologocial or ecclesial sense. The tragedy is that Fif leaders pinned their hopes on this as their preferred solution, in the face of all common sense. As a result, they have held out against any other serious solution being offered. Their "Holy Grail" is complete isolation from the rest of the C of E. By holding out for the impossible, they have never seriously engaged with the possible. I'm not sure whether they have done so out of stupidity or just a determination to cause as much trouble before jumping ship. I can see no other possible explanation for what has gone on.
They will not get their Holy Grail, because what ever next comes to the table won't be what they want and they are not going to get any greater concessions than have already been offered.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Canonical obedience is more about the protection of the clergy than it is about the power of the bishop. It basically means that clergy don't have the baptise cats just because their bishop says so. It's about the right of the clergy to be under biblically orthodox apostolic oversight.
Not sure that helps me much, sorry! What one priest considers to be biblically orthodox apostolic oversight, another might consider dangerous heresy. Isn't that kinda what the whole female clergy / bishops thing is about?
And even with an issue which my two imaginary priests agree on, one might consider it a matter of canonical obedience (and thus feel obliged to obey) while the other might consider it to be an issue of secondary importance. Or is rather that if the bishop considers a certain matter to be one of biblically orthodox apostolic oversight, then he would expect canonical obedience from his priests?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then your "observations" are only partially correct, Karl. To be sure, some traditional Anglo-Catholics have chosen to align with Rome via the Ordinariate, but there is no comparable option on the part of the evangelicals who object to - or have reservations concerning - the innovations being advocated.
I am in complete agreement with daronmedway. For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. Newfrontiers? As un-liturgical as you can get, and suspiciously dodgy governance (see NF threads passim). And despite what Ken posted about evangelical choice of churches, BUGB are fully in favour of women in all positions of leadership, and so are the Pentecostals; URCs and Methodists ordain women, and the Methodists aren’t evangelical either. FIEC are non-liturgical. In the event of women bishops being imposed with no other provision, we’re homeless.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect there are as many Reform refuseniks as there are those from FiF.
I don’t know how many members of Reform are also members of General Synod, but their total membership is quoted on their website as 1500, with 500 of that number being clergy. I don’t know how big the membership of FiF is, and AFAICT it doesn’t appear on their website.
P.S. And thanks to The Man With a Stick for calling ‘foul’ on the pile of misrepresentative bollocks that Ken posted about the voting down of previous proposals.
Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. Newfrontiers? As un-liturgical as you can get, and suspiciously dodgy governance (see NF threads passim).
Good grief, and you call yourselves Protestants? Schism is the way to go. In the US we have the Continuing Anglican movement.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I am in complete agreement with daronmedway. For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. Newfrontiers? As un-liturgical as you can get, and suspiciously dodgy governance (see NF threads passim). And despite what Ken posted about evangelical choice of churches, BUGB are fully in favour of women in all positions of leadership, and so are the Pentecostals; URCs and Methodists ordain women, and the Methodists aren’t evangelical either. FIEC are non-liturgical. In the event of women bishops being imposed with no other provision, we’re homeless.
This, I suppose, is the root of the problem. Liberal catholics are equally devoid of other homes. Looks like we're stuck with each other.
[edited for coding fuck-up]
[ 21. November 2012, 18:37: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
[QUOTE] For the conservative evangelical Anglicans there is no-where else to go. What other church is evangelical, has liturgical worship and doesn’t ordain women? RCs? No – not evangelical. We’re homeless.
I'll give you the same answer I gave my father in law. Now's the time to call the removals people in.
1. Ask your synod reps how they voted - and if they voted against your view and the view of the diocese make sure they know how disappointed you are, in the strongest terms. You may like to suggest that the individual concerned resigns as he/she is putting self above representation.
2. Hand the keys of the (expensive to run) parish church back to the bishop and meet in a school or something appropriate in size and location for your congregation.
3.Offer a rent to the said diocese for the vicarage and pay your own clergy direct, if you really need them.
4. Find like minded churches who are doing the same and covenant together to share resources. You'll already know who they are.
5. Make a public statement (? Press Release to the local paper), explaining your actions and the reasons for them. Local papers love local interest in national stories - word even has a template for press releases so you make their work easier.
If enough of the (larger) churches consider 2. then you are bringing pressure to bear of a different kind whether wittingly or unwittingly. As with all circumstances, money talks.
[ 21. November 2012, 18:49: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The leading lights of these con-evo pity parties all come from posh churches with inflated corporate egos and emotionally stunted public schoolboy leaders, and the bible-dodging progressives are exploit every ecclesial structure and canonical loophole in order to push the imaginations of their own hearts regardless of anyone who holds biblical convictions to the contrary. The whole she-bang is a shameful, ridiculous travesty.
I like the cut of your jib on this Daron!
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Again, my experience cannot be considered normative, but the evangelical CofE churches I have known have gone out of their way to be as non-liturgical as it's possible to be without breaking the rules completely.
Hence, again, IME, their services are almost identical to those of any other evangelical churches.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
