|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
it's the choice of God what sex and 'ethnic group' you are
So God could have "chosen" for me to be Afro-Caribbean even though both of my parents are Caucasian?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Come now, it's no different from the 'banned' verse of All things bright and beautiful...
quote:
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I have been following this for a while. It is indeed sexist, and it may also be secular, but it may also be of God and Christ to accept all. The issues may be deeply felt, but this makes little different in the facts of the remarks.
The question is really, 'is the sexism justified'. To which it seems that those who mourn the break with Rome would answer 'yes", and those who consider that Rome should change, not us, would answer 'no'.
As for the comment above that God would also tell the Roman and Orthodox churches, if God was telling the CofE and Anglicans, this would presume that they listened and were prepared to hear. The comments that were written in response to racism may seem dismissable and over-the-top, but no doubt they seemed dismissable in the era of slavery. There is little question where the tide of history is leading: out of all the types of bondage that humans prepare for one another. This is a dead horses topic because argument will not convince and the issues are not possible to reconcile. I do recall however, when women were first ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada some 25 years ago, and also when the thee and thou language was changed, and how divisive and argumentative it all was. It isn't anymore.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
.....I do recall however, when women were first ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada some 25 years ago, and also when the thee and thou language was changed, and how divisive and argumentative it all was. It isn't anymore.
*cough*
Just over thirty-six years actually.
Lily Pad,
who finds this whole discussion slightly odd as the Diocesan here is not only a woman but is also a mother and grandmother.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ashworth
Shipmate
# 12645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ashworth - where do you see yourself liturgically/musically etc? If you had to identify yourself with a strand within the CoE, ignoring the OoW issue, where would you put yourself? Is OoW the make-or-break issue for you? If it is, I think your liturgical preferences are going to have to take a back seat (as they do for most people, really).
My liturgical and my musical preferences have taken a back seat for the last 20 years!
Ignoring the OoW issue my preference would be for a church with full catholic ceremony and teaching, with everything being done decently and in order but within a relaxed and slightly informal setting. Having decided to try and remain within the CofE it would, if possible, be Common Worship with the few usual additions but not the full new Roman rite. Musically I would like a modern, lively setting of the Mass of the type enjoyed at such places as the Walsingham Youth Pilgrimage. I would like a mixture of traditional hymns and modern worship songs - with everything from plainsong through to Graham Kendrick and indeed much more modern.
There are a very few FinF churches that are like this but not in my diocese - I visited a church in the London Diocese last year that fitted this discription apart from it being on the new Roman rite. The FinF churches in the diocese where I live are mainly now new Roman rite and strictly New English Hymnal. Two of these churches are also eastward facing which is not what I would naturally choose.
The church I have worshipped in for the past 10 years or so was Common Worship but has also recently moved over to the new Roman rite, but interestingly with a few Common Worship variations mainly through me insisting! We do actually use a wide variety of music and we are relaxed in our worship. The reason why I made my original points is that we are very small in numbers, are in a long interregnum with no signs of an end to it and also we have only passed Resolutions A and B and so are not FinF. I was thinking about what alternatives I have if my current church closes or is forced to change it's style of worship.
Posts: 70 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
The question is really, 'is the sexism justified'. To which it seems that those who mourn the break with Rome would answer 'yes", and those who consider that Rome should change, not us, would answer 'no'.
I mourn the break with Rome and wish that the Church was not divided. However, we are, and if I believed that Rome was right about everything I would swim the Tiber tomorrow. There are many ways in which the RCC sets an example to us Anglicans, and many ways in which we fall behind. Equally though we are in a position to take action in what can surely (without delusions of grandeur) be described as prophetic ways. Ordination of women to all orders of the historic ministry is one example; full inclusion of all people whatever their gender or sexuality is another.
It seems slightly nonsensical to say we can't act independently of Rome, yet insist on remaining independent. We should either stick to our guns or, if we accept Rome's authority, follow the logic and join them.
quote:
Originally posted by Ashworth:
The church I have worshipped in for the past 10 years or so was Common Worship but has also recently moved over to the new Roman rite, but interestingly with a few Common Worship variations mainly through me insisting! We do actually use a wide variety of music and we are relaxed in our worship. The reason why I made my original points is that we are very small in numbers, are in a long interregnum with no signs of an end to it and also we have only passed Resolutions A and B and so are not FinF. I was thinking about what alternatives I have if my current church closes or is forced to change it's style of worship.
Was the decision to adopt the Roman Rite taken during the interregnum? It seems a rather dodgy thing to do.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ashworth
Shipmate
# 12645
|
Posted
QUOTE]Was the decision to adopt the Roman Rite taken during the interregnum? It seems a rather dodgy thing to do. [/QB][/QUOTE]
It was, and indeed was a very dodgy thing to do!
Even worse than that it was done without even any discussion or approval of the PCC! It was even introduced on the Sunday after the previous priest had finished, before he had even had time to move out of the vicarage to his new parish!
There were reasons, although I don't necessarily agree with them, and as a member of the PCC I now very much regret not having seriously challenged what happened. Looking back I now know that if I had done this I would have won and we would still be using Common Worship. Now nearly 18 months later it is perhaps not the time to do this but the person responsible for it knows my disaproval and has made a few minor concessions.
As apalling as the situation may seem it was done by someone who I think did have the future of the church at heart. He saw this as a move to bring us into line with the neighbouring Resolution C churches who it was hoped we could be joined with as part of a wider group of catholic parishes. Also it was to make it easier for a number of retired clergy from these churches who would be looking after us during what we knew would be a long interregnum.
I didn't agree with it all at the time and with hindsight know that I should have forcefully opposed it. I don't think opposing it now would be for the general good and unity of the very small congregation that remains. It will, however, be close to the top of my agenda during and after the appointment of a new priest.
For obvious reasons I'm not giving away any clues as to the location of my church!
Posts: 70 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think "appalling" is a strong word to use of a bit of liturgical arsing about. It's really not a big issue in the scheme of things. The church worries too much about minutiae like this. Thinking that they're not minutiae is half the problem.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ashworth
Shipmate
# 12645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think "appalling" is a strong word to use of a bit of liturgical arsing about. It's really not a big issue in the scheme of things. The church worries too much about minutiae like this. Thinking that they're not minutiae is half the problem.
Now reflecting upon it, I agree that perhaps 'appalling' was a rather strong word to use. What I really was getting at was that some of the people in this forum would very strongly disagree with what was done and how it was done and perhaps would be appalled that I as a member of the PCC allowed it to be done. It's done now and for the time being I'm learning to live with it without causing any problems that would cause divisions and disunity during what is proving to be a long and difficult interregnum. There are indeed more important matters to be dealt with at the moment.
Posts: 70 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ashworth:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Ashworth - where do you see yourself liturgically/musically etc? If you had to identify yourself with a strand within the CoE, ignoring the OoW issue, where would you put yourself? Is OoW the make-or-break issue for you? If it is, I think your liturgical preferences are going to have to take a back seat (as they do for most people, really).
My liturgical and my musical preferences have taken a back seat for the last 20 years!
Ignoring the OoW issue my preference would be for a church with full catholic ceremony and teaching, with everything being done decently and in order but within a relaxed and slightly informal setting. Having decided to try and remain within the CofE it would, if possible, be Common Worship with the few usual additions but not the full new Roman rite. Musically I would like a modern, lively setting of the Mass of the type enjoyed at such places as the Walsingham Youth Pilgrimage. I would like a mixture of traditional hymns and modern worship songs - with everything from plainsong through to Graham Kendrick and indeed much more modern.
There are a very few FinF churches that are like this but not in my diocese - I visited a church in the London Diocese last year that fitted this discription apart from it being on the new Roman rite. The FinF churches in the diocese where I live are mainly now new Roman rite and strictly New English Hymnal. Two of these churches are also eastward facing which is not what I would naturally choose.
The church I have worshipped in for the past 10 years or so was Common Worship but has also recently moved over to the new Roman rite, but interestingly with a few Common Worship variations mainly through me insisting! We do actually use a wide variety of music and we are relaxed in our worship. The reason why I made my original points is that we are very small in numbers, are in a long interregnum with no signs of an end to it and also we have only passed Resolutions A and B and so are not FinF. I was thinking about what alternatives I have if my current church closes or is forced to change it's style of worship.
My church is pretty close to what you describe as ideal (albeit without incense at the moment as we're in the church hall for heating reasons, and incense and the smoke alarms don't mix!)...but in support of women bishops. So it seems that either you change your view on women's ordination, or you join Rome. Could you not attend an RC church with more modern worship without receiving the Eucharist etc, so making it clear you're not an RC yourself? Considering that we've had women priests in the CoE for 20 years, I'm puzzled as to why you haven't become an RC by now anyway. To be honest, I'm puzzled as to why most FinF-ers haven't.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Considering that we've had women priests in the CoE for 20 years, I'm puzzled as to why you haven't become an RC by now anyway. To be honest, I'm puzzled as to why most FinF-ers haven't.
Although predominantly Anglo-Papist in outlook and composition, FiF is not solely an Anglo-Catholic/Papist grouping.
There is also the other issue that I have just pointed out, not all opponents of the O&CoW are Papalist and therefore swimming the Tiber is not necesarily a move that can be done for many a doctrinal, pastoral and governance reason.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Considering that we've had women priests in the CoE for 20 years, I'm puzzled as to why you haven't become an RC by now anyway. To be honest, I'm puzzled as to why most FinF-ers haven't.
Although predominantly Anglo-Papist in outlook and composition, FiF is not solely an Anglo-Catholic/Papist grouping.
There is also the other issue that I have just pointed out, not all opponents of the O&CoW are Papalist and therefore swimming the Tiber is not necesarily a move that can be done for many a doctrinal, pastoral and governance reason.
But they clearly don't want to be a full part of the CoE, so why are they? Why not set up their own church? This goes for conservative evangelical opponents of OoW too.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But they clearly don't want to be a full part of the CoE, so why are they? Why not set up their own church? This goes for conservative evangelical opponents of OoW too.
The point is they do want to belong within the Anglican Communion. The trouble is trying to find the means in which to allow them to remain loyal members of the Anglican Communion.
The Third Province proposals have gained little traction and IMO would not be agreed to and if they seek to come under the jurisdiction of a foreign Bishop, even if they are an Anglican Bishop, seems to be a bit self-defeating if you are standing up for an Anglican reading of the historic rights of the individual Provinces and Diocese. Though I imagine others more learned in this area would be able to show me otherwise...
I would also say that we already have enough Schism and a proliferation of Churches outside the Apostolic and Catholic Church (I'm Anglican so don't get angry with me for viewing Roman, Anglican and Orthodox all as parts of the One, Catholic and Apostolic) without forcing groups into the situation.
[ 21. January 2013, 13:44: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But they clearly don't want to be a full part of the CoE, so why are they? Why not set up their own church? This goes for conservative evangelical opponents of OoW too.
The point is they do want to belong within the Anglican Communion. The trouble is trying to find the means in which to allow them to remain loyal members of the Anglican Communion.
The Third Province proposals have gained little traction and IMO would not be agreed to and if they seek to come under the jurisdiction of a foreign Bishop, even if they are an Anglican Bishop, seems to be a bit self-defeating if you are standing up for an Anglican reading of the historic rights of the individual Provinces and Diocese. Though I imagine others more learned in this area would be able to show me otherwise...
I would also say that we already have enough Schism and a proliferation of Churches outside the Apostolic and Catholic Church (I'm Anglican so don't get angry with me for viewing Roman, Anglican and Orthodox all as parts of the One, Catholic and Apostolic) without forcing groups into the situation.
Personally, I don't care if they *want* to belong to the Anglican Communion or not - they are not in agreement with official Anglican policy so they should not be in the Communion. To be honest, the same goes for Sydney.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But they clearly don't want to be a full part of the CoE, so why are they? Why not set up their own church? This goes for conservative evangelical opponents of OoW too.
The point is they do want to belong within the Anglican Communion. The trouble is trying to find the means in which to allow them to remain loyal members of the Anglican Communion.
But how can they be, if they are not in communion with a large (and increasing) part of the Anglican world which has women bishops? (and incidentally, I didn't think that the con-evos were particularly bothered about the Anglican Communion.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Personally, I don't care if they *want* to belong to the Anglican Communion or not...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) - surely it was this stance that led to a statement and a hell call somewhere else on this issue...
quote:
- they are not in agreement with official Anglican policy so they should not be in the Communion. To be honest, the same goes for Sydney.
What is the official Anglican policy? As far as I know, official Anglican policy, as it concerns the CofE, is only decided on Women Priests, for which the official position would be: we have women Priests but also provision is made... there is no official statement that can be considered official Anglican policy - the only way that would happen is if by some malevolent interference, the Covenant was to rear its ugly head again.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Yes Sergius-Melli. To my mind, the nearest 'guiding policy' on this issue is the CofE's own 'foundation documents': the sermons and tracts of the original Tudor Settlement. They make it clear that the CofE does not demand absolute conformity on matters which have no bearing on the core of Christian faith, or indeed even suggest that the losing side should leave.
I am astonished, as a relative liberal on OoW, that we are so ready to abandon the via media. Did Paul tell the Judaizers to leave the church at the Council of Jerusalem? A much more important issue.
50 years ago, opponents of OoW might have been tempted to say the same to liberals: "go and join a liberal church if you want ordained women". And we would have rebuked them. Theology is not formed by shifting majorities. And especially, Angloid, as you implicitly admitted, when the majority of the Communion are determinedly AGAINST OoW (as bishops at least). Why are fellow liberals so quick with brooms? Really bemusing..
[ 21. January 2013, 15:18: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
What is the official Anglican policy? As far as I know, official Anglican policy, as it concerns the CofE, is only decided on Women Priests, for which the official position would be: we have women Priests but also provision is made... there is no official statement that can be considered official Anglican policy - the only way that would happen is if by some malevolent interference, the Covenant was to rear its ugly head again.
The official CofE position is, of course, still the Act of Synod, and until that is repealed, it remains the only legitimate test. The increasingly totalitarian tone of many of its opponents seems to prove that they don't get that supreme Anglican virtue, tolerance, and so should surely be the ones who are off forming new sects.
As far as the wider Anglican communion is concerned (the proper definition of 'Anglican'?) the differing provinces have differing policies, which again means that anyone who wants to be an 'Anglican' can have either view. And again to suggest that 'Anglicans MUST agree to women bishops' is a sign that you're not really an Anglican.
But don't let such inconvenient truths stop the bandwagon of feminism...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TeaAddict
Apprentice
# 14946
|
Posted
As an almost glib comment (might as well as this horse has been flogged to death so aggressively by now by far more theologically capable individuals than I), why can't the government chuck the Equalities Act (I think that's the law in question) at the C of E (especially as most MPs who showed interest were in favour). I'd love wathcing the con-evo crowd squirm at that!
--------------------
In the interests of safety, please turn off common sense now.
Posts: 16 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TeaAddict:
As an almost glib comment (might as well as this horse has been flogged to death so aggressively by now by far more theologically capable individuals than I), why can't the government chuck the Equalities Act (I think that's the law in question) at the C of E (especially as most MPs who showed interest were in favour). I'd love wathcing the con-evo crowd squirm at that!
Because it's a can of worms. In fact, it's lots of cans of worms.
This is probably one reason that ECHR doesn't generally interfere in religious practices, as they don't want to spend the next 100 years dealing with it. For example, technically, a Catholic woman could go to ECHR demanding to be ordained.
Or atheists could demand communion. And so on, and so on.
This is why the recent furore over circumcision in Germany will probably not go to ECHR, as nobody really wants to face the mayhem which would ensue, if they pronounced it illegal, as a lower German court did. Oops.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
...because religious organisations are exempt. Parliament can't remove the exemption for all religious organisations (because that goes against the Human Rights Act freedom of religion provisions) and can't for the CofE alone (because that discriminates against the CofE).
And it is good that Parliament cannot. 1 Corinthians 6:
"4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court – and this in front of unbelievers!"
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
What is the official Anglican policy? As far as I know, official Anglican policy, as it concerns the CofE, is only decided on Women Priests, for which the official position would be: we have women Priests but also provision is made... there is no official statement that can be considered official Anglican policy - the only way that would happen is if by some malevolent interference, the Covenant was to rear its ugly head again.
The official CofE position is, of course, still the Act of Synod, and until that is repealed, it remains the only legitimate test. The increasingly totalitarian tone of many of its opponents seems to prove that they don't get that supreme Anglican virtue, tolerance, and so should surely be the ones who are off forming new sects.
As far as the wider Anglican communion is concerned (the proper definition of 'Anglican'?) the differing provinces have differing policies, which again means that anyone who wants to be an 'Anglican' can have either view. And again to suggest that 'Anglicans MUST agree to women bishops' is a sign that you're not really an Anglican.
But don't let such inconvenient truths stop the bandwagon of feminism...
Was that at me?
I did qualify that I was using Anglican as regards to the CofE and not the wider Communion...
I feel sort of violated by your post, but I'm sure that it wasn't directed at me, because if it were I'm not entirely sure what you are driving at...
I thoroughly stand behind, and affirm ButchCassidy's statement on this, it seems eminantely sensible and proper.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think Human Rights law permits religions to discriminate, and as I said above, I would think that ECHR would be very extremely reluctant to tamper with this, as it would be not a can of worms, but a dumper-truck full of wriggling serpents.
I suppose it's partly the history of religious conflict in Europe that makes the courts reluctant to interfere, and of course, local factors. Thus the schemozzle over circumcision in Germany made many people very nervous, as it raised again the issue of the treatment of Jews (and also Muslims).
But probably one day, some brave soul will go to ECHR, in order to challenge this right to discrimination. Maybe not tomorrow.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As far as the wider Anglican communion is concerned (the proper definition of 'Anglican'?) the differing provinces have differing policies, which again means that anyone who wants to be an 'Anglican' can have either view. And again to suggest that 'Anglicans MUST agree to women bishops' is a sign that you're not really an Anglican.
Absolutely. The tyranny of liberal intolerance.
However, to be part of an Anglican Communion implies that, whatever one's view on this or any other contentious issue, we remain in communion with each other. If we are prepared to compromise and live with those of other views, we must be prepared to join together around the Lord's table.
--------------------
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
|
|
TeaAddict
Apprentice
# 14946
|
Posted
The fact is, the ECHR has recently dealt what could be the first blow to relgious groups right to discriminate (the whole crucifix at work and refusal to allow christian staff working in certain roles from not carrying out certain functions on the basis of belief). As the C of E does have certain state functions, unlike other churches, it should be subject to secular law as well (it does need to be held accountable). I am not basing this argument on any biblical teaching, but rather that a democracy in the 21st century should not be run by an unaccountable few that do not represent the vast minority of the country.
--------------------
In the interests of safety, please turn off common sense now.
Posts: 16 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TeaAddict:
The fact is, the ECHR has recently dealt what could be the first blow to relgious groups right to discriminate (the whole crucifix at work and refusal to allow christian staff working in certain roles from not carrying out certain functions on the basis of belief). As the C of E does have certain state functions, unlike other churches, it should be subject to secular law as well (it does need to be held accountable). I am not basing this argument on any biblical teaching, but rather that a democracy in the 21st century should not be run by an unaccountable few that do not represent the vast minority of the country.
Those four cases were different. They were about employment laws being applied to religious people, not about discrimination being applied by churches and religions.
I thought they were pretty straightforward - obviously, you can't have people refusing to work with, or serve, gay people, no more than black people.
Yes, it's possible that eventually religions will be unable to discriminate, although I think it is a can of worms. Should an atheist be able to apply to be ordained? I guess most would not want to be, but you always get some awkward sod.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TeaAddict
Apprentice
# 14946
|
Posted
According to one of my former vicars, apparently he has met a couple who confessed to becoming christian after taking the job. Amazes me how they got through the recruitment process
--------------------
In the interests of safety, please turn off common sense now.
Posts: 16 | From: England | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I keep being surprised at various homophobic counsellors being outed, as most training organizations now have stiff ethical codes, with anti-discrimination writ large. Either they kept very very quiet, or the training was lax. I think today that probably you are going to be grilled, about being prepared to work with gay people. If not, sayonara.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
As a therapist, I work with people whose lifestyles I don't necessarily agree with all the time. It is my job to set that aside and try to work with the client on the issues they present. I am gay, I have given a course of sex therapy to a straight woman, I have reason to believe (from the occasional remark she made) that she assumed I was married with children. The treatment worked. I did not share my personal circumstances with her.
I have also worked with clients who have talked about how they considered homosexuals to be sort of subhuman. The person I am thinking of who used that particular expression, did not realise I was gay and I did not choose to tell him. I did offer him evidence based treatment that had a positive impact on his quality of life. It was my job to treat his schizophrenia not debate his moral views.
I have also worked with people who are extremely racist, who use illegal drugs, who are promiscuous, who are verbally abusive when acutely ill and don't see that as a problem, who have lost custody of their children due to abuse or neglect, have done jail time etc etc. I work for the NHS, we will treat anyone who is ill enough.
If you can only treat people whose personal circumstances you share, or even you approve of, then your client base is going to be somewhat restricted and it will eventually impair your ability to do your job.
My point being that most therapists have to deal with mismatch part of the time - and you typically don't do it by refusing to treat.
(Also given that most sex therapy will include advice on solo and mutual masturbation I am somewhat stymied with how they squared that rock-solid OT theology either.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a funny old business. My strangest client adored Hitler, and kept photos of him around the house. Oddly enough, I liked him a lot, and we got on. If he'd been a nasty Nazi, I don't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
What is the official Anglican policy? As far as I know, official Anglican policy, as it concerns the CofE, is only decided on Women Priests, for which the official position would be: we have women Priests but also provision is made... there is no official statement that can be considered official Anglican policy - the only way that would happen is if by some malevolent interference, the Covenant was to rear its ugly head again.
The official CofE position is, of course, still the Act of Synod, and until that is repealed, it remains the only legitimate test. The increasingly totalitarian tone of many of its opponents seems to prove that they don't get that supreme Anglican virtue, tolerance, and so should surely be the ones who are off forming new sects.
As far as the wider Anglican communion is concerned (the proper definition of 'Anglican'?) the differing provinces have differing policies, which again means that anyone who wants to be an 'Anglican' can have either view. And again to suggest that 'Anglicans MUST agree to women bishops' is a sign that you're not really an Anglican.
But don't let such inconvenient truths stop the bandwagon of feminism...
Was that at me?
I did qualify that I was using Anglican as regards to the CofE and not the wider Communion...
I feel sort of violated by your post, but I'm sure that it wasn't directed at me, because if it were I'm not entirely sure what you are driving at...
I thoroughly stand behind, and affirm ButchCassidy's statement on this, it seems eminantely sensible and proper.
Hope you're ok now S M.
Ah liberals should tolerate illiberal discrimination and oppression Saith ES ?
No - oppression must be withstood to its face -wherever possible.
It is not liberal to seek to prevent women ministers being excluded, bullied, shouted at in public, or spat upon. No, I have no trouble standing up to such appalling behaviours.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
'It is not liberal to seek to prevent women ministers being excluded, bullied, shouted at in public, or spat upon. No, I have no trouble standing up to such appalling behaviours' (me !).
Silly sod that I am - I meant of course, to say ' Is it not liberal....'
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
What is the official Anglican policy? As far as I know, official Anglican policy, as it concerns the CofE, is only decided on Women Priests, for which the official position would be: we have women Priests but also provision is made... there is no official statement that can be considered official Anglican policy - the only way that would happen is if by some malevolent interference, the Covenant was to rear its ugly head again.
The official CofE position is, of course, still the Act of Synod, and until that is repealed, it remains the only legitimate test. The increasingly totalitarian tone of many of its opponents seems to prove that they don't get that supreme Anglican virtue, tolerance, and so should surely be the ones who are off forming new sects.
As far as the wider Anglican communion is concerned (the proper definition of 'Anglican'?) the differing provinces have differing policies, which again means that anyone who wants to be an 'Anglican' can have either view. And again to suggest that 'Anglicans MUST agree to women bishops' is a sign that you're not really an Anglican.
But don't let such inconvenient truths stop the bandwagon of feminism...
'The bandwagon of feminism' - aside from slight surprise that a 100-year-old+ movement is still a 'bandwagon', what you call a bandwagon I call treating women as equals and fellow human beings who are also called by God to the presbytery and episcopate (and indeed archepiscopate!). Tomato, tom-ah-to.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I have no trouble with that either. And if that means I'm not a liberal, then I guess I'm not a liberal.
Quite so. We have here of course the classic straw man; because some of the idiots who oppose OoW go over the top and carry out deeply offensive behaviours, shouldn't be used to delegimate those whose behaviour is appropriate, but can't accept this innovation. In the same way that the fact that the gays who were invited to carry out a pro-gay campaign at a deanery synod also had books on their stall propounding non-monogamous 'relationships' doesn't allow me to condemn all gays for their views. Clever debating tactic though... fools a lot of the people a lot of the time.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Hope you're ok now S M.
Yes I went home after work and thoroughly scrubbed the dirt I felt I had had lobbed at me off.
quote:
No - oppression must be withstood to its face -wherever possible.
It is not liberal to seek to HAVEwomen ministers bullied, shouted at in public, or spat upon.
I fixed that bit for you.
Nobody is saying that people should act hurrendously towards women where they then face physical violence and intimidation like that, but as Ender's Shadow points out, it is a few individuals who act like this:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Quite so. We have here of course the classic straw man; because some of the idiots who oppose OoW go over the top and carry out deeply offensive behaviours, shouldn't be used to delegimate those whose behaviour is appropriate, but can't accept this innovation.
and in the main most female Priests do not face this sort of intimidation, they are rare examples.
To help this conversation further I suggest a brief perusal of news items for an approach to setting the failure of the CofE to legislate for the CoW within a proper context, thinking of the recent happenings in India, the all-to-frequent use of rape as a tool of war in Africa, the subservience of women throughout the Islamised world.
Putting this whole debate into the wider context of oppression, humiliation and violence towards women, the CofE and the CoW debate is far from oppressive and detrimental to health, if anybody is so sensitive I question their suitability to be a Priest in the first place...
Now whilst the majority of women Priest's have taken the recent developments in their stride, accepted the position and resolved to make efforst through reasoned debate to persuade others, and whilst they keep this in the context of the real suffering and oppression women face elsewhere in the world, there is a minority who we were shown on the news weeping and distraught at the most recent vote - a completely unneccessary, and OTT reaction to a piece of Church legislation which does them no physical or mental harm, but people will continue to say that this is an horrendous act that has taken place and does not
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[treat] women as equals and fellow human beings
where surely this most recent of debates in the history of women's liberation and equality is of little consequence to treating women equally and as fellow human beings.
To claim otherwise is to begin to base the debate on purely secular issues again, regardless of the theological and is, when presented like this, it seems normally to be linked to some sweeping statement about how the Spirit is dictating that women have been
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
called by God to the presbytery and episcopate (and indeed archepiscopate!).
which seems to indicate an particularly intimate knowledge with the Spirit, to such a degree that the people who feel able to postulate generalised points such as this might in fact be the Messiah! The current debate has shown that he Church is not of one mind in this regard, and since it is the system of governance we have that is used to discern God's unfolding plan for humanity it is that decision we follow.
So to round of:
1. I support the O&CoW but will not condone any action which is used to deface, denigrate and humiliate people on either side of the debate.
2. Encourage everyone to see the CoW debate in the wider context of female equality and treatment.
3. Encourage everyone to trust the systems we have in place for the discernment of God's will are truly led by the Spirit and do not need modification, but need to be maintained and for Spirit led debate and concilliation to allwo us to reach a solution.
4. To remember that liberalism is about the harmonious acceptance of points of view you disagree with and allowing accomodation for them in the world in which we live as long as they do not directly cause harm to others or ourselves.
I think that's about everything covered... did I miss anything?
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Putting this whole debate into the wider context of oppression, humiliation and violence towards women, the CofE and the CoW debate is far from oppressive and detrimental to health
Is it for us to determine how other people should feel? It may well be perceived differently if you are a female priest in the CofE or CofW. Oppression is surely in the eye of the oppressed?
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
if anybody is so sensitive I question their suitability to be a Priest in the first place...
Again, is that for us to determine? I don't recall that being one of the criteria for selection.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
there is a minority who we were shown on the news weeping and distraught at the most recent vote - a completely unneccessary, and OTT reaction to a piece of Church legislation which does them no physical or mental harm
Again, how can you know what possible harm people are suffering? I will give that we are not talking on the same degree as routine rape in Africa or India, and subservient treatment of women anywhere, but I can guarantee you that there is genuinely felt hurt on this and from people we (I) know and love.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is it for us to determine how other people should feel? It may well be perceived differently if you are a female priest in the CofE or CofW. Oppression is surely in the eye of the oppressed?
Again, is that for us to determine? I don't recall that being one of the criteria for selection.
Again, how can you know what possible harm people are suffering? I will give that we are not talking on the same degree as routine rape in Africa or India, and subservient treatment of women anywhere, but I can guarantee you that there is genuinely felt hurt on this and from people we (I) know and love.
I should make clear I use CoW to refer to the Consecration of Women, the Church in Wales would be CiW.
Point:
1. No it is not for us to decide how others should feel, but since I have made my comment in line with a wider appreciation of the context of the real physical and mental violence and devaluing women face in the world, this seems to be rather a rather minor issue to try and equate with a clear example of forced female subservience and inequality.
2. I would suggest that it might fall under sections D, E, F & I of these criteria .
3. And yes there was genuine hurt, but it should not be compared on par with the real physical and mental trauma faced by women day-in and day-out across the world. To do so would trivialise that suffering which goes on.
This is not solely an argument about equality and personal safety, but a theological argument, for which there are some apparently rather stable and sound arguments against the O&CoW.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
So: Women in Holy Orders should shut up and just be glad they're not being gang-raped or having their genitals mutilated and stitched shut. They should get a sense of proportion.
So: Opponents of the ordination of women (and the consecration of women bishops) should shut up and be glad they're not being burnt alive with their families, drowned, beheaded, impaled, roasted on gridirons, torn apart by wild horses, or, indeed, crucified.
That seems to be your argument, S-M. Or at least the first part of it seems to be your argument.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I am astonished, as a relative liberal on OoW, that we are so ready to abandon the via media. Did Paul tell the Judaizers to leave the church at the Council of Jerusalem? A much more important issue.
Actually I'd argue it was part of the same basic issue - who's in and who's out. And whilst we don't have a statement of agree or leave in quite that form, the Judaisers lost. Gentiles were fully included in the church.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Putting this whole debate into the wider context of oppression, humiliation and violence towards women, the CofE and the CoW debate is far from oppressive and detrimental to health, if anybody is so sensitive I question their suitability to be a Priest in the first place...
Now whilst the majority of women Priest's have taken the recent developments in their stride, accepted the position and resolved to make efforst through reasoned debate to persuade others, and whilst they keep this in the context of the real suffering and oppression women face elsewhere in the world, there is a minority who we were shown on the news weeping and distraught at the most recent vote - a completely unneccessary, and OTT reaction to a piece of Church legislation which does them no physical or mental harm, but people will continue to say that this is an horrendous act that has taken place and does not
There speaks a man who doesn't know his privilege. I wept bitterly after the vote. Maybe it wasn't entirely rational, but emotion isn't. I fully the vote as a rejection and I'm not ordained. I didn't expect to free like that and I held it together for a couple of hours because I was at work. But when I'd locked up I burst into tears.
Sexism is a continuum and discriminating against women in one place supports 'stronger' forms of sexism. Men are still the default setting for human in the world. But that's not what the Bible tells me. Both men and women are made in God's image and the church should be leading on this not colluding in oppression. And God is calling women.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Host Mode [ACTIVATE]
Sergius-Melli - It was established some time ago that the description 'priestess' was not acceptable on the Ship when referring to women priests in the Church of England - or indeed any other denomination.
The abbreviation CoW, used by you and defined by you as 'Consecration of Women' is equally as offensive with its clear bovine connotations.
Please stop using this abbreviation.
OoW (Ordination of Women) is a long-accepted abbreviation: alternatively 'ECW' (Episcopal Consecration of Women) is a new one on me and seems equally free of offense - even if it was the abbreviation for an extreme wrestling programme over a decade ago! (I am indebted to Louise for suggesting this alternative.)
Frankly I'm surprised that you've not yet been called to Hell over this ...
Host Mode [DE-ACTIVATE]
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
(That was a suggestion from the Ecclesiantics hosts, Tony, I just passed it on. I'm no expert on these things.)
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
3. And yes there was genuine hurt, but it should not be compared on par with the real physical and mental trauma faced by women day-in and day-out across the world. To do so would trivialise that suffering which goes on.
Ah yes, the good old "worst oppression in the world" dodge. A classic of the genre. The basic reasoning is that since injustice Y is much worse than injustice X, anyone worried about X is an unserious person trivializing Y. In other words, X isn't a real injustice because Y is worse. The practical effect of this is that it's a sign of a trivial and unserious disposition to worry about anything other than what is literally the worst form of oppression in the world.
Of course, most people advancing this argument aren't actually doing much about Y themselves, other than using it as rhetorical foil to deflect and trivialize any discussion of X.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Dawkins used the same argument to some feminists, who were protesting at male boorishness. RD argued that Muslim girls suffered genital mutilation, so what right had these affluent Western women to be upset at men being sexist?
A completely idiotic argument of course, since we can always think of something worse, therefore, you shouldn't be worrying about the first thing. Eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
2. I would suggest that it might fall under sections D, E, F & I of these criteria .
I'm still not sure why being upset, visibly or not, after what happened at General Synod and feeling that what happened might somehow be oppressing you as a member of the female sex might make someone unsuitable for the priesthood. Let's be honest as well and say that not all of the people who were visibly upset were (a) priests, (b) women, or both. The picture I remember most vividly is Canon Paula Gooder being consoled by +Rowan.
Whilst you might not approve of everyone's reaction to what happened, the reactions were genuine and heartfelt. I don't think it is any way desirable for a priest to be the sort of person who will constantly (NB) hide his/her emotions in order to put on the "professional" face of the church. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn?
But then perhaps you are a DDO or sit on a BAP and you think otherwise?
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
I am astonished, as a relative liberal on OoW, that we are so ready to abandon the via media. Did Paul tell the Judaizers to leave the church at the Council of Jerusalem? A much more important issue.
Actually I'd argue it was part of the same basic issue - who's in and who's out. And whilst we don't have a statement of agree or leave in quite that form, the Judaisers lost. Gentiles were fully included in the church.
Carys
Yep that is very true. I was more tackling it from the other end of the continuum - I am (probably on balance) a supporter of OoW, I disagree with other supporters of OoW saying that opponents of OoW should be forced out. Except on grounds of heresy, this "Agree with us or leave" line never seems to enter the NT church. Perhaps because they all lived and worshipped together, they were never able to put the doctrinal difference above the fact that the other person is another member of the Body of Christ.
I am sad that you felt as you did (it is good to be reminded, actually, as a man, of the emotion some feel over this). I think for many at the vote it was not a rejection of OoW, but a recognition that those who hold the view that is still held by the majority of the worldwide church, and has been for 2000 years, should not be thrown out without space made for them. Even if we disagree with them.
[ 23. January 2013, 11:45: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Sergius-Melli - It was established some time ago that the description 'priestess' was not acceptable on the Ship when referring to women priests in the Church of England - or indeed any other denomination.
The abbreviation CoW, used by you and defined by you as 'Consecration of Women' is equally as offensive with its clear bovine connotations.
Please stop using this abbreviation.
OoW (Ordination of Women) is a long-accepted abbreviation: alternatively 'ECW' (Episcopal Consecration of Women) is a new one on me and seems equally free of offense - even if it was the abbreviation for an extreme wrestling programme over a decade ago! (I am indebted to Louise for suggesting this alternative.)
1. I have never used the term 'priestess' - although by all means point me to where I have, I use the term female/woman Priest if anything, so please dock that from my warrant card...
2. I feel you are reading too much into an acronym... ECW - although fitting in with the OoW mould it should be ECoW, but hey - (Episcopal Consecration of Women) is a non-started and bad use of terminology. People are Consecrated to the Episcopate so to say Episcopal Consecration is just saying the same thing twice, the only other time that I can think where women are consecrated is if they are Virgins, where the acronym would be CoV (Consecration of Virgins) as opposed to Virginal Consecration of Women which would indicate somethign else I would have thought.
I say again it is bad use of terminology to suggest ECW - the correct acronym is CoW (following in the mould of the OoW acronym, and for saying plainly what it is.) The alternative I can suggest if it suits you is EoWttE, but that seems a little longwinded for an acronym.
As you rightly point out nobody has called me to hell over this, from which I gather nobody seems to have had a problem, and as I have pointed out over and over again I am a firm supported of the Consecration of Women, so I imagine the reason for no hell call is the fact that people know I am not making a derogatory point, nor seeking to insult, but using what is a common sense acronym. So I suggest that you are demonstrating an over-sensitivity on this matter...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I've asked the question in the Styx.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Carys
