homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now? (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dead Horses: Women Bishops - what now?
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through, so if the lay members of General Synod voted against, they are not being representative, and they have confirmed the suspicion that they are grinding axes for minorities. Having seen the profiles of candidates for General Synod from this Diocese for the 2010 election they were very much standing on tickets, and those voting couldn't always choose to vote the way they would like.

That's where it's broken. The Lay members of General Synod are representing minority issues and not their dioceses.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Members of GS, like MPs, are representatives, not delegates. As such, they are their with a mandate from their electorate, not on behalf of their diocese. To me, the problem is therefore more with the electorate than with the representatives. A lot of filtering in favour of obsessives has already happened before anyone gets into GS.

--------------------
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
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377

 - Posted      Profile for *Leon*   Email *Leon*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I just posted roughly this in hell, but I'll say it here too.

There are enough people in all parties who want to be on GS. They're all crazy, but that's a minor issue. The problem with liberals taking over GS is not the lack of candidates for GS itself.

What is needed is to flood deanery synod. It's blatantly obvious that Reform and FiF have been packing deanery synods, which is quite easy since deanery synod rep elections are usually deemed a success if there were as many candidates as places. So this time round, churches should make sure their deanery synod rep shares their views on women bishops and views this as their top priority. This means at GS election time, (assuming the rep of a liberal evangelical parish) they don't vote for the nice 'bible based' lady who says nothing about women bishops; they're a reform stooge. They vote for the person they suspect is a witch who makes clear their support for women bishops.

The other question is how many WATCH members voted against because of concerns about 'respect'? If it's over 6, I seem to remember hearing that the group of 6 can make 'non-substantial' amendments and try again this synod. And they should do so.

In the very slightly longer term, 2 further reforms are urgently needed. Firstly, we need direct elections to the house of laity. Second, the format of GS needs to be changed so that people with jobs can attend, and also so that it's sufficiently exciting that normal people could sit through a session without losing the will to live.

Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FooloftheShip, I think you're right. The selection of lay members for General Synod should be much more transparent and they should represent the views of the majority of their diocese, not their own personal ones or those of a tiny minority. But how can this be achieved? Membership of General Synod is effectively only open to those with time on their hands and plenty of money - retired middle-class people, in other words. I'd love to offer myself as a member but I have a small daughter to care for, a business to run and my Other Half has to travel a lot for work, so I don't even have enough spare time to be a PCC member (earning a living and looking after the offspring has to take priority over everything else).

And to those of you who think the people in favour of women bishops should leave - why should we, when we outnumber you almost two to one even in General Synod?

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377

 - Posted      Profile for *Leon*   Email *Leon*   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

And to those of you who think the people in favour of women bishops should leave - why should we, when we outnumber you almost two to one even in General Synod?

I disagree. We should leave.

The one thing that could most save the church of England would be if we could lose all those unaffordable grade one listed buildings. Here's our chance.

Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A question which occurred to me when posting in Hell.

The "scornful wonder" from onlookers over the "by schisms rent asunder" impression is not surprising. Synodical government surely requires the Laity as well as the Bishops and Clergy to factor that into their consciences when voting. There was a lot more going on than the matter of their own strongly held opinions.

However you look at it, this change was blocked by a coalition of Laity votes from folks in otherwise quite strongly opposed strands of the C of E. The members of the groups in that coalition may agree over women bishops but they don't agree on much else. So this was a tactical, rather than a strategic, alliance to block an essentially strategic change urged on them by their Bishops.

Would someone mind telling me what was the perception of the wider common good amongst the blocking coalition? Or the perception of the wider potential damage of continuing to block?

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I understand the anger and frustration, but castigating Synodical structures and lay members simply because you do not agree with the result on this occasion looks a bit churlish to me.

I've been grumbling about the structure of the House of Laity since long before this particular vote.

And FWIW I'm not advocating that all or even most controversial points of doctrine should be put to a vote. However if the Church of England is going to put things to a vote - as in this case - I don't see why a vote in the House of Laity should come to a 'better' decision (for any value of better) than a general vote. The notion of the consensus fidelium or consensus of the faithful has a place in even the most 'hierarchical' of Christian traditions. I'm not sure that 'consensus of the committee-junkies' can claim the same ...

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And further to my post above, from a BBC website entry, here is your starter for 10

quote:
Lay member Alison Ruoff said she had voted against the ordination of women bishops in order to keep the Church together.

"There are hundreds of churches in the Church of England which are standing with us and we were doing what was right for them - it's not just me," she said.

"This is to make sure that we can walk together as one Church of England - a broad Church, yes, but we want to be there without splits, without divisions."

The Rev Prebendary Rod Thomas, chairman of the conservative evangelical grouping Reform, said: "We have avoided what could have been a disastrous mistake for our unity and witness."

Try as hard as I can, I find it difficult to avoid the view that Rod Thomas and Alison Ruoff had very little perception of the real-life post-vote impact on both the struggle for internal unity and the more general scorn-bringing impact on witness.

More generally, the Laity minority now appear to have ducked the wider questions in a tactical move to preserve the status quo ante, despite the urgings of their bishops.

By this tactical alliance, I think they have damaged the credibility of the groups within the C of E to which they belong. Far from being a move in favour of unity, it really does look to be a case of

"It's all about Us, Jesus
And all this is for Us"

Where the "Us" are the dissenting groups within a larger group.

[ 21. November 2012, 10:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

I think that's the really astonishing thing here. It's one thing for a vote to be lost if it's known that it's going to be tight and that different sub-bodies have opposing views. But when you've got such an overwhelming number of previous votes having gone the same way, something extremely weird is going on to have it fall at the 'overall' vote.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Membership of General Synod is effectively only open to those with time on their hands and plenty of money - retired middle-class people, in other words.

Why can't Synod meet over a weekend, probably somewhere like Birmingham ( [Roll Eyes] I know) which is easily accessible from most parts of the country? Indeed, why does it have to 'meet' very much at all? Couldn't most of the discussion take place online?

Maybe the Ship of Fools could put in a bid to run the C of E.

--------------------
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
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe the Ship of Fools could put in a bid to run the C of E.

*Checks hosting contract for 'out' clause*

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Fletcher Christian
quote:
I think that is very dependent on how it plays out over the next year, but the damage done today could have significant fallout. Poor Justin. He just got a chalice full of deadly poison.
Absolutely. But perhaps now the saintly compromise and pious hand-wringing over this issue can be brought to a timely end: there IS a way, if Justin and his fellow bishops have a stomach for it.

1. Justin withdraws his acceptance of Canterbury.
2. Rowan departs on schedule.
3. The CPC (a) refuses to recommend anyone at all for Canterbury and, if other vacancies come up, forward female names only.

Two other thoughts:

I don't think the legislation as passed over women priests precludes the appointment of a woman as a Suffragan - so get on and nominate one, just to test the waters.

Parliament should step in and pass an enabling act to authorise women bishops, and at the same time remove all and any exemptions from the CofE in all equality legislation.

To get the ball rolling people who feel strongly enough should lobby their MP along these lines perhaps?

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leon posted:
quote:
In the very slightly longer term, 2 further reforms ...
Problem is, I don't think the CofE has time. Even if the bishops' hastily convened crisis meeting this morning produces some sort of fudge, by voting the way they did the unholy alliance in the House of Laity has managed to do more harm to the respect which some of the general populace still have for the CofE than anything or anyone else.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

1. Justin withdraws his acceptance of Canterbury.
2. Rowan departs on schedule.
3. The CPC (a) refuses to recommend anyone at all for Canterbury and, if other vacancies come up, forward female names only.

Great idea - they won't have the balls for it (that would take a woman) but great idea all the same.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

I think that's the really astonishing thing here. It's one thing for a vote to be lost if it's known that it's going to be tight and that different sub-bodies have opposing views. But when you've got such an overwhelming number of previous votes having gone the same way, something extremely weird is going on to have it fall at the 'overall' vote.
A touch too simplistic, I fear. It's true that 'an overwhelming number of previous votes (went) the same way' - but they were votes requiring simple majorities only. Anyone who checked the arithmetic on those votes would have seen that there wasn't a 2/3 majority in the House of Laity and that there was therefore every chance it would fall, when it came to final approval.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear right, Boogie: it seems the cojones are lacking, never mind the spirit...

Meanwhile, our (male, FiF) vicar is being VERY quiet - could it be he's worried about the reaction of his 90% female congregation, 2 female wardens and 95% female PCC???

And those fools in Laity represent US???

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just a question. I haven't been following this very well beforehand, but what were the expectations before the vote? Were the odds already that this would be voted down? Or was it a complete surprise?

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There was always a question over the vote in the House of Laity, but it was known it would pass in the House of Bishops and House of Clergy. A lot of people were hoping it would pass this time.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151

 - Posted      Profile for Fifi   Email Fifi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question. I haven't been following this very well beforehand, but what were the expectations before the vote? Were the odds already that this would be voted down? Or was it a complete surprise?

Most observant commentators thought it was too close to call, given the required 2/3 majority. Those who were surprised yesterday may well have been in denial . . .
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Just a question. I haven't been following this very well beforehand, but what were the expectations before the vote? Were the odds already that this would be voted down? Or was it a complete surprise?

The bishops and clergy were expected to vote it through, but the laity were often described as being on a knife edge. It always looked like it was going to be close.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks, this has been helpful.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Dear right, Boogie: it seems the cojones are lacking, never mind the spirit...

Meanwhile, our (male, FiF) vicar is being VERY quiet - could it be he's worried about the reaction of his 90% female congregation, 2 female wardens and 95% female PCC???

And those fools in Laity represent US???

You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position. I was going to say that God alone knows why; but actually I do know the reason, and it's deeply saddening to me.

As is the fact that a 90% female congregation is far from unusual. It does throw the ludicrousness of the situation into sharp relief though.

[ 21. November 2012, 11:55: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

I think that's the really astonishing thing here. It's one thing for a vote to be lost if it's known that it's going to be tight and that different sub-bodies have opposing views. But when you've got such an overwhelming number of previous votes having gone the same way, something extremely weird is going on to have it fall at the 'overall' vote.
A touch too simplistic, I fear. It's true that 'an overwhelming number of previous votes (went) the same way' - but they were votes requiring simple majorities only. Anyone who checked the arithmetic on those votes would have seen that there wasn't a 2/3 majority in the House of Laity and that there was therefore every chance it would fall, when it came to final approval.
Oh. I thought someone had said it was the same voting mechanism. I've been misled.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position. I was going to say that God alone knows why; but actually I do know the reason, and it's deeply saddening to me.

What do you think the reason is?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I understood from the conversations at the time that it was the same voting mechanism in this Diocese, I had assumed it was the same for all dioceses on that basis.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position. I was going to say that God alone knows why; but actually I do know the reason, and it's deeply saddening to me.

What do you think the reason is?
They've been theologically convinced that their second-class role in the church is God ordained.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TK85100
Apprentice
# 17403

 - Posted      Profile for TK85100         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Dear right, Boogie: it seems the cojones are lacking, never mind the spirit...

Meanwhile, our (male, FiF) vicar is being VERY quiet - could it be he's worried about the reaction of his 90% female congregation, 2 female wardens and 95% female PCC???

And those fools in Laity represent US???


Posts: 1 | Registered: Oct 2012  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They've been theologically convinced that their second-class role in the church is God ordained.

If you said 'they are theologically convinced', I would be happier. I don't like the implication that FiF women can't think for themselves even if I don't agree with their conclusions.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They've been theologically convinced that their second-class role in the church is God ordained.

If you said 'they are theologically convinced', I would be happier. I don't like the implication that FiF women can't think for themselves even if I don't agree with their conclusions.
I'm not really that bothered which it is; I am however concerned that it's possible for people to believe that God wants them to be second class. It weirds me out. We don't accept this "equal but different" crap anywhere else because we know full well it means "so men are in charge."

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back to the question of "What now", try this for size:
a quote given to several media by the Chairman of REFORM, the Revd Prebendary Rod Thomas
My overall conclusion is that it is very good news for the Church of England. We have avoided what could have been a disastrous mistake for our unity and witness.


The biggest problem would seem to be persuading people like this that their "taking a stand" (as they see it) gives witness to many of the great un-churched that the CofE is a backward looking, non-inclusive, misogynist club.

OK, so that's women and gays alienated, so who will they go for next? Redheads? the unmarried? dog-owners?

And some church going people are surely now asking if this version of the CofE is a club of which they wish to continue being a member.
[brick wall]

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest problem would seem to be persuading people like this that their "taking a stand" (as they see it) gives witness to many of the great un-churched that the CofE is a backward looking, non-inclusive, misogynist club.

You know the feeling when you play your favourite song to a friend, or invite them to a concert by your favourite band? 'Will they feel the same way about this song, I hope they don't think it's unlistenable rubbish!'

Well, I got that feeling listening to the radio yesterday, hearing various people defending the 'No' position. No doubt my reaction simply shows my view on this issue, but I was taken aback by how strong my reaction was - a feeling of despair that people are going to think the C of E (and Christians generally) are sexist and horrifically out of touch.

--------------------
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
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The biggest problem would seem to be persuading people like this that their "taking a stand" (as they see it) gives witness to many of the great un-churched that the CofE is a backward looking, non-inclusive, misogynist club.

You know the feeling when you play your favourite song to a friend, or invite them to a concert by your favourite band? 'Will they feel the same way about this song, I hope they don't think it's unlistenable rubbish!'

Well, I got that feeling listening to the radio yesterday, hearing various people defending the 'No' position. No doubt my reaction simply shows my view on this issue, but I was taken aback by how strong my reaction was - a feeling of despair that people are going to think the C of E (and Christians generally) are sexist and horrifically out of touch.

I think that's it for me. It's not some obscure piece of doctrine. It's the church appearing to be a hangover from a set of assumptions and prejudices which the rest of society has moved on from.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You can find the full text of ++Rowan's speech this morning in this link.

It seems to me to be, characteristically, measured. "We have a lot of explaining to do".

I noted this in particular

quote:
But that sense of a Synod which, for admirable, praiseworthy reasons gives a very strong voice to the minority – that sense of Synod needs some explaining and some exploring if it is not simply to be seen as a holding to hostage of Synod by certain groups.
As I've already said as someone outside the C of E, but a long term admirer nontheless, that strikes me as an issue of considerable importance.

Recriminations will do no good (Rowan must be right about that). There has been a frustration of the majority will on a very important issue for the future of the C of E, despite a long and patient process of seeking to find both where the best way forward lay and a decent accommodation for minority dissenters. Both the reasons for that frustration and the mechanisms which allowed it are now in serious question.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644

 - Posted      Profile for Beeswax Altar   Email Beeswax Altar   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
originally posted by Karl: The Liberal Backslider:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position. I was going to say that God alone knows why; but actually I do know the reason, and it's deeply saddening to me.

Yep. Mrs. Mother Beeswax Altar has the most trouble with older women. They can't bring themselves to call her Mother even though they have no problem calling me Father. TEC started ordaining women in the mid-70's and we serve in a liberal diocese. So, unfortunately, female clergy in COE are going to get that treatment until the old guard dies out.

--------------------
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
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position.
There are several possible explanations:

1. The vicar is deluded; either his congregation is just pretending to agree with him, or he is ignoring any signs of revolt.
2. The vicar thinks his congregation agrees with him, but actually they are just going to his church because they've been going there for about the last 70 years and they don't see why they should go anywhere else just because the vicar (who's only been there about ten years) is a misogynist. They think of it as their church, in fact, and he is merely an incidental detail - like that badly worn gargoyle just above the West window.
3. They really do agree with him, because they were brought up to believe they were second-class citizens and not to expect anything more.
4. Any or all of the above (assuming this church has more than one member).

[ 21. November 2012, 14:57: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
OK, so that's women and gays alienated, so who will they go for next? Redheads? the unmarried? dog-owners?
Owners of mobile phones. It's the eighth deadly sin (overlooked by Evagrius Pontius only because they hadn't been invented yet), and we're on a roll.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
You'd think, but the bloke being interviewed on Newsnight back on Monday on the FiF side had a congregation almost entirely composed of elderly women who fully agreed with their vicar's position.
There are several possible explanations:

1. The vicar is deluded; either his congregation is just pretending to agree with him, or he is ignoring any signs of revolt.
2. The vicar thinks his congregation agrees with him, but actually they are just going to his church because they've been going there for about the last 70 years and they don't see why they should go anywhere else just because the vicar (who's only been there about ten years) is a misogynist. They think of it as their church, in fact, and he is merely an incidental detail - like that badly worn gargoyle just above the West window.
3. They really do agree with him, because they were brought up to believe they were second-class citizens and not to expect anything more.
4. Any or all of the above (assuming this church has more than one member).

They interviewed the congregation. They really did support their status as second class members. So it's option 3.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That explains why nearly all of them were old women, then. Everybody else has either left or died...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That explains why nearly all of them were old women, then. Everybody else has either left or died...

You can say that about the church in general, TBH.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823

 - Posted      Profile for Mr. Rob         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The parts of the church that are growing tend to be the ones who oppose women bishops.

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?


The ordination of women bishops is no magic cure for anything, except for some percentage of the general public who see it as a progressive step forward in what they perceive to be a repressive and outdated religious institution.

The ordination of women was never, and is not now, something to be desired or to be done in order to increase church growth in numbers. Numbers and women are often linked and compared, as you have done, but that is like comparing apples and oranges.

The ordination of women was never intended to be part of any strategy for church growth. Instead, inclusion of ordained women is a matter of theology and justice in the church. Growth and decline in the church are linked to many other factors which include cultural development, demographics, evangelistic effort, stewardship and education.

*

Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Why can't Synod meet over a weekend, probably somewhere like Birmingham ( [Roll Eyes] I know) which is easily accessible from most parts of the country? Indeed, why does it have to 'meet' very much at all? Couldn't most of the discussion take place online?

It doesn't meet much. Usually only twice a year, sometimes three times. Of the two meetings, one is over a weekend. Next year there are nine days definitely scheduled, with an option for another three if needed.

That's not that much really. Plenty of people spend more time than that away on work or other trips. I once used to spend more than that many days a year on Labour party or trade union matters. If you are committed to something, nine days a yeaar isn't a huge amount.

It meets once in London, once in York, because its legally a sort of joint meeting of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and those bodies met in those cities. So pretty much everyone in England is nearis to at least one of the two, other those in the far south-west. And dicoceses do pay expenses to Synod members as far as I know.

My feeling is that the problem with Synod isn't the time commitment, its that it is so detached from what most people int he pews notice or care about. They tend not to know who is standing or who represents what, so they impose no mandate on their representatives. A strongly opinionated vicar might, but the laity probably rarely do. And even then, when the reps get to vote for General Synod members they know little about them unless they openly stand on a party line. I suspecyt there are secret caucuses and whips around but unless you are in on it you won't know which is which.

Anyway, I can't talk. I've been a Deanery Synod member for years and now I'm on Dicocesan Synod, so I've sort of become one of the usual suspects.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe things will change next time. Perhaps this vote will give some of the "silent majority" a push to get more representative Synods elected.

As for what the majority view in the CofE actually is, well I don't know for sure, because no-one ever asked them. My mildly-informed guess is that the largest body of opinion within the CofE the issue is probably something like "Women Bishops? Don't really mind either way but can't see anything wrong with the idea."

And the next largest is likely to be "Women Bishops? You mean we aren't allowed to have women bishops? Since when? Whyever not?"

[ 21. November 2012, 16:18: Message edited by: ken ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943

 - Posted      Profile for Traveller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Chesterbelloc, the frustration is because 42 out of 44 dioceses using the same voting structure voted this measure through

I think that's the really astonishing thing here. It's one thing for a vote to be lost if it's known that it's going to be tight and that different sub-bodies have opposing views. But when you've got such an overwhelming number of previous votes having gone the same way, something extremely weird is going on to have it fall at the 'overall' vote.
A touch too simplistic, I fear. It's true that 'an overwhelming number of previous votes (went) the same way' - but they were votes requiring simple majorities only. Anyone who checked the arithmetic on those votes would have seen that there wasn't a 2/3 majority in the House of Laity and that there was therefore every chance it would fall, when it came to final approval.
A summation of the total votes in Diocesan Synods was that 75% of the Laity voted in favour, 75% of the Clergy and 81% of the Bishops. Each Diocese required a simple majority, but some Dioceses were overwhelmingly in favour. In 14, the laity were over 85% in favour. However, those votes counted for the square root of zero when it came to General Synod.

--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33

Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The parts of the church that are growing tend to be the ones who oppose women bishops.

The church didn't grow when women became priests. It continued to decline. What makes people think that women bishops is a magic cure for decline?

FFS Leo, it does not need to be done as a cure for decline. It needs to be done because it is the right thing to do. Don't you dare suggest that's it's just for when we're desperate and there's no better reason.
I didn't say it was - I was answering Edify in the OP, who quoted Canon Harper as saying that this vote would lead the church into terminal declined.

That you have read my post out of context anbd responded in the way you did is an example of how the two integrities are not listening to each other.

As a supporter for the OOW for over 30 years, i am often ashamed of my fellows for the way they wish to exclude all those who disagree with them.

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
42 out of 44 diocese have voted in favour of the proposals, I presume they got the 67% of necessary votes in the laity.

Probably - but they were voting BEFORE seeing what the code of practice would entail. It is the inadequacy of the code that is the issue, not women bishops as such.

--------------------
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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I don't think the legislation as passed over women priests precludes the appointment of a woman as a Suffragan

Nonsense - it was about women bishops, not merely women diocesans.

--------------------
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
Chapelhead

I am
# 21

 - Posted      Profile for Chapelhead     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As for what the majority view in the CofE actually is, well I don't know for sure, because no-one ever asked them. My mildly-informed guess is that the largest body of opinion within the CofE the issue is probably something like "Women Bishops? Don't really mind either way but can't see anything wrong with the idea."

And the next largest is likely to be "Women Bishops? You mean we aren't allowed to have women bishops? Since when? Whyever not?"

I'm in a very different church situation to Ken, but this doesn't sound far wrong to me. However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.

But in practical day-to-day matters it's difficult to get excited about a person we never see.

--------------------
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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
However, I think there would be a reasonable-sized group who would say 'Definitely yes'.

Of course. I'm pretty sure the "defintely no" camp is a minority, possibly quite a small one. Maybe half of the strongly marked Anglo-Catholics and a quite small number of the very most doctrinally conservative evangelicals.

The ones who are mopst frustrating aren't the definite nos so much as the "I support women's ordination women but..." brigade. There are people, including some very extreme theological liberals, who seem quite happy to put party before principle (and at least one of them posts a lot on this thread)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am reposting the suggestion I originally made on the related hell thread:
quote:
Yes, there should be an honoured place for traditionalists - may I suggest that the honoured place is specifically the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. They can maintain a specific confraternity of male priests, ordained by male bishops with a male pedigree, with a third order attached for the laity to keep in touch.

They can maintain a traveling roster and visit each cathederal on a monthly basis to offer the eucharist. (The church as a whole can support this by maintaining funds in trust to maintain this in perpetuity.)

Meanwhile, the church could ordain female bishops and carry on with the rest of the business of the church.

In the time between the monthly celebrations, traditionalist laity could participate in non-eucharistic services. The diocesan would maintain their authority in respect to managing the affairs of the diocese, and pastoral support (after all that would be acceptable from a female deacon or canon ?).

The church could also make a commitment to always have at least one male Archbishop.



--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
ken and Chapelhead's observations fit in with the conversations I've had with some good Anglican friends. With the dark and smelly stuff hitting the rotating air-cooling device in public and on the news that seems likely to provoke a good deal more inquiry about General Synod Lay reps. "Who are these people?" seems to be a much more likely question than "how did the bishops manage to cook up this mess?"

Though I've no doubt both will get asked.

If this whole cause-celebre stops folks getting "nodded through" just because they are willing, that would be a gain no matter what happens.

For me, the other really choice nugget from ++ Rowan's address was this one.

quote:
Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted, spoke; the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society.


[ 21. November 2012, 19:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  9  10  11 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools