|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Relative nastiness of CofE pressure groups
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
COngratulations indeed. This time next year we will be able to consecrate women as Bishops in the Church in Wales. I'm guessing on the basis of ages that St David's will be the first see to fall vacant.
That is, if we don't decide we've got too many bishops and decide that it should be held jointly with Swansea & Brecon at that point.
Hmm....Bishop John is about 60 I think, so he's got 5 years to go? Of course he could carry on to 70 if he wanted to I suppose.
Omitting Monmouth, who has just been appointed, the ages of the current CiW Bishops are:
Llandaff (and Abp) 66
St Davids 66
S&B 60
St Asaph 54
Bangor 49
So St Davids could be first: otherwise my guess is one of the two northern sees, when ++Barry retires and Andy John or Gregory Cameron is translated to Llandaff and elected Archbishop (not, of course, that the two jobs have to go together, but I suspect that they might do again).
But NB I am very bad indeed at making accurate predictions.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But NB I am very bad indeed at making accurate predictions.
I hope you are!
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Trying to get back to the original thread title, I think that what's obvious is that the "nastiness" of the various pressure groups is determined by a combination of factors such as:
1. where the argument on their particular campaigning concern has got to
2. how marginalised and powerless they are feeling at the time
3. where they see themselves in relation to others whom they might consider to be natural allies
4. the presuppositional basis on which they work
So, on women bishops, Reform think that their understanding of "headship" in scripture is obvious and can't see why nobody else gets it (Factor 4); feel that their fellow evangelicals have deserted them (Factor 3); don't recognise any bishops as being their sort of believer, because we're "all liberal" (Factor 2); and thought they'd won concessions in the last Synod vote only to find the whole country and Parliament was in uproar, and they're likely to get fewer concessions (Factor 1). This is likely to make them feel very marginalised and belligerent!
On SSM, Changing Attitude think they've won the argument in the country and in much of the church (Factor 1); feel upbeat but frustrated - but that they are winning - see their blog (Factor 2); have issues with LGCM (and vice-versa) (Factor 3); and are frustrated that the House of Bishops haven't just accepted that the traditional position on marriage is wrong (Factor 4). This means that they are adopting a careful and quite measured approach behind the scenes to do what their name suggests, and aren't being nasty (they leave that to the folk on Whingeing Anglicans!)
This analysis works pretty well for most of the campaigning groups. For example, WATCH believe they've got to a point where something akin to a one clause measure with a code of practice is accepted by all but a small minority (Factor 1). This makes them bullish but a bit frustrated and liable to be quite vehement in debate if they see a suggestion that the goalposts are being moved again. They're strong on Factors 2 and 3, but less good at explaining themselves on Factor 4 grounds (cf. this thread) because they think the arguments are now done and dusted.
I suspect there are flaws in this taxonomy, which other Shipmates will now expose, and I'm probably guilty of having been on Synod for too long and having spent most of my time observing this stuff!
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
Pete: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And I don't do that lightly.
I might, though, add one other factor: the type of people leadership. Forward in Faith is currently led to two academics (one of whom was effectively a civil servant for most his career) and a bishop (himself of a rather academic bent). All three are, if the unfortunate class implications of the phrase may be forgiven, eminently 'clubable'. Such people tend to experienced at sounding reasonable, whatever they are saying. The fact that prominent lay members of Forward in Faith are disproportionately Oxonians, and its clerical members nearly uniformly so, may also be relevant. Oxford is not only the 'home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names, and impossible loyalties' but also a university that, more than perhaps any other in the world, rewards students are who can eloquently and logically defend unpopular or counterintuitive propositions.
With the exception of the Rev'd Rachel Weir (chairwoman of WATCH), about whom personally I know nothing, I don't know anything about the leadership of the other pressure groups, but I suspect it may be relevant.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I'd welcome (really!) suggestions as to how to oppose women priests whilst not seeming like a bigot. I really would.
Honest answer? Depends who thinks you seem like a bigot.
For the non-Christioan, non-Churchgoing majority, therer probably isn't anything you can say that would do it. You can't make a claim that "God told us not to ordain women" stick in their eyes because they don;t bel;ieve in God. or, perhaps more likely, they mighty belive in god but don;t believe he specially tells Christians how to run their churches. So for them there is no "there" there. There is no special revelation or tradtion that can justify what seems like unfair discrimination because there is no authorative source that it could have come from. So if you want to ban women from ordination - or from anything else - they will assume you are doing it either because you don't like women or because you think women are incapable or inferior. Because there is no other reason you could have for it in their worldview. That worked in a world where it was fashionable for men to think women were incapable or inferior. It doesn't in the world we live in now.
That, as an aside, is why the anti-women group needs to keep the issue out of Parliament or any other secular sphere. Your only allies among non-churchgoers will be those who not only think women are inferior to men, but are also unafraid to say so on TV. And that's a dying breed. And that's why there is almost certainly going to be no third Province this side of Disestablishment and almost certainly never could have been because making one would involve Parliament. And even if MPs were sympathetic (I suspect very few of them are) they know they could never explain it to their voters. So once politics outside the CofE gets involved, you are stuffed.
Within church circles things are dfifferent, because you can at least deploy arguments from revelation or tradition without being dismissed out of hand. But you can still mess it up by not seeming to take your opponents or their views seriously, or by denying things that seem to them to be central to revelation or tradition.
Its probably too late now. But going back a couple of decades, if you had wanted not to seem like bigots within the Church of England circles, and with the benefit of extreme hindsight, I'd have recommended:
- Don't claim that everyone in favour of ordaining women is a theological liberal. Loads of them are, but at least some of them aren't. And you need them as your allies.
- Don't grab hold of the name "traditionalist" and apply it exclusively to yourselves. In the context of the Church of England its not particularly true. In many ways you are innovators - don't make this one issue a shibboleth of who is "traditional" or not.
- Get some women with feminist credentials to speak on your behalf (Hard to find? Maybe there's a reason for that)
- Its not a good idea to have almost nothing but ordained men with posh accents who went to Oxford University (and give every impression of supporting the Tories and having been to provate schools) Not that such people are neccessarily bigots, or even very likely to be bigots, but if someone else wants to think they are bigots it makes it easier for them - so a bit more diversity might help.
- Keep quiet about the Pope. And don't conflate the Roman catholics with the Unoversal Church, or even with the Western Church, and talk as if all our friends among the Methodists and Lutherans and Presbyrterians and so on, who do ordain women, are somehow completely irrelevant.
- Never, ever, make any paralels between ordaining women to the priesthood and moral issues. At all. And specifically not sexual morality. And 100% definitely no, nay, never, anything to do with homosexuality or same-sex marriage. It might work to get a few hard-line conservative evangelicals on your side but it really pisses off everyone else, and its utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.
- Stop pretending that the move to ordain women is just imported from secular politics. It isn't.
- Stop using the word "feminist" as an insult. That really annoys people.
But like I said its probably too late now.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
One might add to ken's list: "Don't impugn the good faith and orthodoxy of people who disagree with you whilst noisily demanding the moon on a stick in terms of provision for your good selves".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
I'm not convinced comments like "We cannot see how a female bishop could be what a diocesan bishop should be – a Father in God and a focus of unity for all within his diocese." from FiF really help matters.
[Duplicate deleted]
[ 13. September 2013, 22:10: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm not convinced comments like "We cannot see how a female bishop could be what a diocesan bishop should be – a Father in God and a focus of unity for all within his diocese." from FiF really help matters.
[Duplicate deleted]
That comment needn't have come from FiF. It's just an unfortunate truth that any impartial observer could have made. Whilst there are still people who oppose women bishops in the Church, even the potential for a woman bishop is going to make canonical obedience strictly an impossibility for some clergy. There's no need to examine their motives for it. It's a simple fact.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
There's no need to examine their motives for it. It's a simple fact.
It might be a fact that they won't swear canonical obedience, but there's nothing physically stopping them. It's therefore a question of belief and conscience, and the motivation behind that is wide open to scrutiny.
Nice try, but no.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm not convinced comments like "We cannot see how a female bishop could be what a diocesan bishop should be – a Father in God and a focus of unity for all within his diocese." from FiF really help matters.
That comment needn't have come from FiF. It's just an unfortunate truth that any impartial observer could have made. Whilst there are still people who oppose women bishops in the Church, even the potential for a woman bishop is going to make canonical obedience strictly an impossibility for some clergy. There's no need to examine their motives for it. It's a simple fact.
Your appeals to truth, impartiality, and fact do not make any of what you said true, impartial, or fact.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm not convinced comments like "We cannot see how a female bishop could be what a diocesan bishop should be – a Father in God and a focus of unity for all within his diocese." from FiF really help matters.
[Duplicate deleted]
That comment needn't have come from FiF. It's just an unfortunate truth that any impartial observer could have made.
Indeed - I am a former member of MOW so support women in ordained ministry but I wonder how they can be a focus of unity when something like 33% of churchgoers oppose OOW.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
something like 33% of churchgoers oppose OOW.
??? I doubt if 33% of even many 'anti-OoW' congregations have strong feelings against. Certainly in all the churches I know anything about (ranging from very traditional anglo-catholic to very much lower than MOTR) it would be hard to find more than one or two opponents in any of them. Maybe hardline Reform type places have more, but I'm sure it is far from unanimous.
It is not unlikely that there are some racists in the diocese of York who refuse to accept +John Sentamu as their archbishop. It would be a scandal of the first order if the church made concessions to accomodate them. Why should misogyny be treated any differently from racism?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
What you are saying therefore is that sexism is much more ingrained in the teaching of the church than is racism.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
If that's the line you take, leo, why are you so keen for the Church to change its traditional teaching on the Jews?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What you are saying therefore is that sexism is much more ingrained in the teaching of the church than is racism.
? No. The 'traditionalists' quote the bible as an authority.
There is stuff in the bible against women's ordained ministry (not that i believe that 'ordination;' is a biblical idea) whereas there isn't anything against the ministry of black people.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I'm not convinced comments like "We cannot see how a female bishop could be what a diocesan bishop should be – a Father in God and a focus of unity for all within his diocese." from FiF really help matters.
That comment needn't have come from FiF. It's just an unfortunate truth that any impartial observer could have made. Whilst there are still people who oppose women bishops in the Church, even the potential for a woman bishop is going to make canonical obedience strictly an impossibility for some clergy. There's no need to examine their motives for it. It's a simple fact.
Your appeals to truth, impartiality, and fact do not make any of what you said true, impartial, or fact.
Maybe I should explain more clearly. No-one seriously disputes the existence of opponents of women bishops. No-one seriously disputes that their position is coherent in its own terms. It really does not matter one jot what their position is. It just matters that they exist. Your reply therefore makes no sense at all. Are you wishing some sort of oblivion on people you (and I, although that is completely irrelevant, as we are talking impartiality) disagree with? If so, see you in Hell.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
If that's the line you take, leo, why are you so keen for the Church to change its traditional teaching on the Jews?
Wherever did I say that I agreed with this 'line'? I was explaining it. Don't shoot the messenger.
Because you never say you disagree with it, leo; and you seek constantly to explain, in a sympathetic manner, the point of view of those who hold it; this contrasts sharply with your method on the 'what means this rage and spite?' thread in Ecclesiantics. You act there as if you think you are standing up for the Jews in the face of Christian antisemitism; You act here as if you think you are standing up for 'Traditionalists' in the face of a monstrous regiment of women.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Maybe I should explain more clearly. No-one seriously disputes the existence of opponents of women bishops. No-one seriously disputes that their position is coherent in its own terms. It really does not matter one jot what their position is. It just matters that they exist. Your reply therefore makes no sense at all. Are you wishing some sort of oblivion on people you (and I, although that is completely irrelevant, as we are talking impartiality) disagree with? If so, see you in Hell.
No, we understood you perfectly the first time: you don't want the reasons for holding those opinions scrutinised because ... well. Who knows?
But you don't get to frame the parameters for the debate. Your (and others') motivations, social and theological, for opposing OoW, are fair game.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What you are saying therefore is that sexism is much more ingrained in the teaching of the church than is racism.
? No. The 'traditionalists' quote the bible as an authority.
There is stuff in the bible against women's ordained ministry (not that i believe that 'ordination;' is a biblical idea) whereas there isn't anything against the ministry of black people.
All that says is that sexism is ingrained not just in 'tradition' (as commonly understood) but in scripture too. I'm sure you can find racism in the OT at least, but it's never been quite so ingrained.
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I may regret asking this but - early an OOW poster asserted that the CofE had said it was in a period discernment. If that were true - how would the end of that period of discernment be recognised ?
Would it not be by an act of synod - with the assumption being they were guided by the holy spirit ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
No-one seriously disputes that their position is coherent in its own terms.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
No-one seriously disputes that the Pope is a Hasidic Jew. Or that bears defecate in the mid-Atlantic.
I have never seen a defence of any version of the traditionalist position that is coherent in any terms. I certainly haven't seen a coherent defence of the traditionalist position that explains why they should seek an honoured and equal place in an institution whose priests and bishops they do not recognise as priests and bishops. I have seen no coherent defence of seeking alternative episcopal oversight within the same institution. I have asked for one. None have been forthcoming.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
the CofE had said it was in a period discernment
The interesting thing is that neither the Measure nor the Act of Synod (nor the Canons as far as I can see) refers to or implies any period of discernment.
The Act of Synod states it is "desirable that all concerned should endeavour to ensure that discernment in the wider Church of the rightness or otherwise of the Church of England’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood should be as open a process as possible" but not to a "period" of discernment, or reception. Such language is not in the Measure (or Canons).
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
the CofE had said it was in a period discernment
The interesting thing is that neither the Measure nor the Act of Synod (nor the Canons as far as I can see) refers to or implies any period of discernment.
The Act of Synod states it is "desirable that all concerned should endeavour to ensure that discernment in the wider Church of the rightness or otherwise of the Church of England’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood should be as open a process as possible" but not to a "period" of discernment, or reception. Such language is not in the Measure (or Canons).
And how would the "wider church" discern the rightness of OoW? That's right, an oecumenical council. Has there been one? No.
++Rowan stated in 2009 that the CofE was still in "what is still formally acknowledged to be a time of discernment and reception"
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, we understood you perfectly the first time: you don't want the reasons for holding those opinions scrutinised because ... well. Who knows?
That's bollocks, and you know it is. If you want to make personal attacks against me, please do so in Hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I have never seen a defence of any version of the traditionalist position that is coherent in any terms.
Perhaps you need to step outside your comfort zone and try to understand other people's perspectives. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
While I respect the former Archbishop greatly, his tenure was marked by trying to allow the indefensible to continue so long as the conservative faction cried loudly enough about it. See also the exclusion of Bishop Gene from the Lambeth Conference.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I have never seen a defence of any version of the traditionalist position that is coherent in any terms.
Perhaps you need to step outside your comfort zone and try to understand other people's perspectives. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them.
I am unable to understand other people's perspectives if they are unwilling to explain them to me or to respond to what seem to me to be valid criticisms.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
No, we understood you perfectly the first time: you don't want the reasons for holding those opinions scrutinised because ... well. Who knows?
That's bollocks, and you know it is. If you want to make personal attacks against me, please do so in Hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I have never seen a defence of any version of the traditionalist position that is coherent in any terms.
Perhaps you need to step outside your comfort zone and try to understand other people's perspectives. It doesn't mean you have to agree with them.
You're being incredibly defensive, while being unable to defend your views with actual words of explanation.
We'll draw our own inferences from that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
And how would the "wider church" discern the rightness of OoW? That's right, an oecumenical council.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Are you planning to invite the female bishops to your Fantasy Council?
There is, of course, an alternative means of discernment we can do now, which is finding out whether women are actually capable of doing the job of a priest, listening to the people they minister to, seeing what effect openness to female ministry has on Christian communities, and trusting in the Holy Spirit's guidance. I don't know for sure, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that it was that sort of thing that the Synod and the Archbishop had in mind when they talked about discernment, rather than some pious hope that the Pope and the Patriarch were going to get their shit together any time soon.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
the CofE had said it was in a period discernment
The interesting thing is that neither the Measure nor the Act of Synod (nor the Canons as far as I can see) refers to or implies any period of discernment.
The Act of Synod states it is "desirable that all concerned should endeavour to ensure that discernment in the wider Church of the rightness or otherwise of the Church of England’s decision to ordain women to the priesthood should be as open a process as possible" but not to a "period" of discernment, or reception. Such language is not in the Measure (or Canons).
And how would the "wider church" discern the rightness of OoW? That's right, an oecumenical council. Has there been one? No.
++Rowan stated in 2009 that the CofE was still in "what is still formally acknowledged to be a time of discernment and reception"
Ok - but how would you know the period of discernment had ended, *within the cofe* ? Or are you asserting the cofe has no authority to end its own discernment ?
(The diosceasn poll was pre the 2012 synod I believe, so we are some years on from Rowan's statement.)
[ 14. September 2013, 22:48: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
And how would the "wider church" discern the rightness of OoW? That's right, an oecumenical council.
Are you planning to invite the female bishops to your Fantasy Council?
There is, of course, an alternative means of discernment we can do now, which is finding out whether women are actually capable of doing the job of a priest, listening to the people they minister to, seeing what effect openness to female ministry has on Christian communities, and trusting in the Holy Spirit's guidance. I don't know for sure, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that it was that sort of thing that the Synod and the Archbishop had in mind when they talked about discernment, rather than some pious hope that the Pope and the Patriarch were going to get their shit together any time soon.
So you'll peer into the Sacrament to make sure it's real, will you? Thought not. Only an oecumenical council would be able to make the decision about female liceity. To pretend that we can just make up our own minds and trust our old pal the Holy Ghost to sort everything out is delusion.
ETA: and yes of course I'm asserting that the CofE doesn't have the authority to decide that reception has ended. Anything else is both a foregone conclusion and mind-boggling arrogance.
[ 14. September 2013, 22:57: Message edited by: Vade Mecum ]
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
So what limits would you set on the authority of the cofe ? My tradition is different, authority is vested in the national yearly meeting to discern the way forward. As i understand it the RCs effectively vest that authority in the pope, and the orthodoxen in the individual patriarchs. I do not know if those churches would see their authority to interpret tradition as bound to an ecumenical council.
(On a related point, what is it about an ecumenical council that would make it better able to discern the will of God ?)
[ 14. September 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So what limits would you set on the authority of the cofe ? My tradition is different, authority is vested in the national yearly meeting to discern the way forward. As i understand it the RCs effectively vest that authority in the pope, and the orthodoxen in the individual patriarchs. I do not know if those churches would see their authority to interpret tradition as bound to an ecumenical council.
(On a related point, what is it about an ecumenical council that would make it better able to discern the will of God ?)
The Church of England does not have the authority to alter the faith as it has been received. It can fuss around the edges all it likes. The problem is naturally found in defining what that faith is, and where those edges are. The same is true of your tradition, whatever it may think.
Rome has long declared that it has "no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".
An oecumenical council - a truly oecumnical one - would, as the voice of the Church, of necessity speak truth. They have long been held to be infallible. The Oracle Wikipedia on the Infallibility of the Church
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
So you'll peer into the Sacrament to make sure it's real, will you? Thought not.
What do you mean "real"?
If you mean, would I consider, before receiving communion, whether this was an occasion on which a person whose call to priestly ministry had been discerned by a Christian community was commemorating (with the traditionally approved symbols and a form of words within the generally accepted range of variation), the sacrifice of Christ for our salvation, and in doing so intended to do what the Church does, then the honest answer is, "usually, no; like most Christians I generally take all that on trust, and my thoughts are directed more on trying to receive worthily than on critiquing the minister, since that's what I judge from the scriptures is my responsibility to get right".
But on those few occasions when I do consider the validity of the sacraments, then yes, I do think that I can ask those same questions about what is being done if the priest is a woman. I don't see that the questions are materially different to those I'd ask if she was a man, or that I need a ecumenical council to help me decide them.
Particularly because, as I said above, it's rather more likely that I'll come back from church tomorrow to find that my village has been burned down by the worshippers of Thor than it is that the bishops of the world will have got together and agreed on something. So really it's just as well that the lack of an ecumenical council will not leave be paralysed with indecision, since that would mean I'd never be able to take communion again.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So what limits would you set on the authority of the cofe ? My tradition is different, authority is vested in the national yearly meeting to discern the way forward. As i understand it the RCs effectively vest that authority in the pope, and the orthodoxen in the individual patriarchs. I do not know if those churches would see their authority to interpret tradition as bound to an ecumenical council.
(On a related point, what is it about an ecumenical council that would make it better able to discern the will of God ?)
The Church of England does not have the authority to alter the faith as it has been received. It can fuss around the edges all it likes. The problem is naturally found in defining what that faith is, and where those edges are. The same is true of your tradition, whatever it may think.
Rome has long declared that it has "no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".
An oecumenical council - a truly oecumnical one - would, as the voice of the Church, of necessity speak truth. They have long been held to be infallible. The Oracle Wikipedia on the Infallibility of the Church
So your belief is that the gender/secondary sexual characteristics/chromosomal sex of the priest is part of the deposit of faith ? Given its not creedal, how do you derive that ? (Also which definition of sex are you using ? Appearance / gender role or chromosomal ?)
[ 14. September 2013, 23:55: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So what limits would you set on the authority of the cofe ? My tradition is different, authority is vested in the national yearly meeting to discern the way forward. As i understand it the RCs effectively vest that authority in the pope, and the orthodoxen in the individual patriarchs. I do not know if those churches would see their authority to interpret tradition as bound to an ecumenical council.
(On a related point, what is it about an ecumenical council that would make it better able to discern the will of God ?)
The Church of England does not have the authority to alter the faith as it has been received. It can fuss around the edges all it likes. The problem is naturally found in defining what that faith is, and where those edges are. The same is true of your tradition, whatever it may think.
Rome has long declared that it has "no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".
An oecumenical council - a truly oecumnical one - would, as the voice of the Church, of necessity speak truth. They have long been held to be infallible. The Oracle Wikipedia on the Infallibility of the Church
So your belief is that the gender/secondary sexual characteristics/chromosomal sex of the priest is part of the deposit of faith ? Given its not creedal, how do you derive that ? (Also which definition of sex are you using ? Appearance / gender role or chromosomal ?)
Yes. Christ didn't, the Church hasn't, so we shouldn't/cannot.
I'm not an expert on the sexes, so you'll have to seek an answer from someone better qualified on the last part.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I read the document you linked, it makes no mention of an ecumenical council to discern the will of God on this issue. It appears that the author assumes that the RC church has discerned that it thinks it can not do this, and it has done so without reference to other churches - further impairing its ability to seek union with the worldwide anglican communion.
Why is that more a more appropriate assumption of authority to decide, without a council, than a synod decision ? Or to put it another way, why does the magisterium trump the synod ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
So what limits would you set on the authority of the cofe ? My tradition is different, authority is vested in the national yearly meeting to discern the way forward. As i understand it the RCs effectively vest that authority in the pope, and the orthodoxen in the individual patriarchs. I do not know if those churches would see their authority to interpret tradition as bound to an ecumenical council.
(On a related point, what is it about an ecumenical council that would make it better able to discern the will of God ?)
The Church of England does not have the authority to alter the faith as it has been received. It can fuss around the edges all it likes. The problem is naturally found in defining what that faith is, and where those edges are. The same is true of your tradition, whatever it may think.
Rome has long declared that it has "no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women".
An oecumenical council - a truly oecumnical one - would, as the voice of the Church, of necessity speak truth. They have long been held to be infallible. The Oracle Wikipedia on the Infallibility of the Church
So your belief is that the gender/secondary sexual characteristics/chromosomal sex of the priest is part of the deposit of faith ? Given its not creedal, how do you derive that ? (Also which definition of sex are you using ? Appearance / gender role or chromosomal ?)
Yes. Christ didn't, the Church hasn't, so we shouldn't/cannot.
I'm not an expert on the sexes, so you'll have to seek an answer from someone better qualified on the last part.
Christ didn't marry anyone, nor use a liturgy - so I am not sure how that really helps. I can equally well say that Christ chose human beings as apostles - but none of them were white caucasians, so we shouldn't ordain western europeans.
If you can't define what you mean by sex, how can you make it a criteria for ordination ?
But perhaps most pertinently - what do you mean by "the church hasn't" many Christian churches do ?
--------------------
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
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
Eliab, we clearly have very different ideas of what the MBS is: when I say 'Real' I mean 'Really the Body and Blood of Christ'.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
Doublethink, we're in danger of rehashing every Dead Horses thread on this subject ever, but:
The point about referencing Ordinatio was that document's reference to 'authority', which refers to what the Church may or may not do based on the deposit of faith, not to pit Rome against Canterbury. Obviously Rome does not believe itself to be the only Church, because it recognises the orders of the Eastern Churches. On the other hand, Rome is still the Patriarchate of the West, and thus demands respect.
Oh, and 'we' decided to 'ordain' women, so it's not the Romans who are breaking oecumenical relations here. The arrogance of some Anglicans in this regard stuns and sickens me. (yes, I know you aren't an Anglican. That wasn't aimed at you.)
One can use the concept of sex without having a full working knowledge of what happens when it fucks up. I assume you meant hermaphrodites et al. Unless you mean the abominable notion that people can choose their sex, which is patently false.
By 'the Church hasn't', I mean the historic church, in possession of valid orders. This innovation is so staggeringly recent that to quote it as precedent is ridiculous.
Liturgy is not the same thing as sacrament, just as skin colour or ethnicity is not of the same order as sex, so don' try that old canard.
I'm aware this is brief: it's late and we're going round in circles.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Eliab, we clearly have very different ideas of what the MBS is: when I say 'Real' I mean 'Really the Body and Blood of Christ'.
And you can tell from any of my posts on this thread that I don't think it is? Wow.
It may be news to you, but even if I do agree with you, the universal church is not agreed on that point. Unless you want to beg the question by excluding from the definition of 'church' all those Christians with other views.
But really that's beside the point. You can't look directly at bread and wine and see that it's 'really' the body and blood of Christ (or not). You look at the circumstances of its purported consecration, and decide from those if this is a real communion or not. As anyone can do, whatever their understanding of what consecration actually does.
My point is that you are, within limits, and with the guidance of the church, able to discern a valid communion to an acceptable level of certainty. So am I. I take some things on trust, most of the time, and I bet you do, too, but both of us do in fact judge some events to be proper communions where we are confident to receive.
The only relevant difference is that I also do that when the priest is a woman. Since I do then exactly what I and every other communicant does when the priest is a man, on the same criteria, and with the same evidence, you can disable my judgement in discerning valid female ministry only at the cost of disabling that same judgement of male ministry, since what I am doing is in each case exactly the same.
If you want to say that we are incompetent to judge whether this or that sacrament is 'real' then the consequence applies to all sacraments. If you allow some degree of discernment outside of an ecumenical council, then we can use that faculty of discernment to consider women priests. Which is the contention that you are unconvincingly trying to dispute.
Your point that discernment has to mean an ecumenical council is therefore false. You can't seriously assert that that's the CofE meant. You can't seriously suggest that it is a practical option. We are discerning that (some) women are priests: on the same basis that we discern some men to be so. That's obviously what the church meant, and what it committed itself to do.
The results were positive. If it actually annoys you that the results were positive - if it annoys you to the extent that you start to make such unlikely claims that the Anglicans are ordaining women on a provisional basis pending the Byzantine emperor getting the bishops together, rather than having to face the results of the discernment process we actually did - that, in my opinion, says something significant about your motives.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
If that's the line you take, leo, why are you so keen for the Church to change its traditional teaching on the Jews?
Wherever did I say that I agreed with this 'line'? I was explaining it. Don't shoot the messenger.
Because you never say you disagree with it, leo; and you seek constantly to explain, in a sympathetic manner, the point of view of those who hold it; this contrasts sharply with your method on the 'what means this rage and spite?' thread in Ecclesiantics. You act there as if you think you are standing up for the Jews in the face of Christian antisemitism; You act here as if you think you are standing up for 'Traditionalists' in the face of a monstrous regiment of women.
On ordained women: the major churches don't do it
On anti-semitism, the main churches have issued apologies for and guidelines against it.
So I consider myself to be in line with the majority of Christians.
My Achilles heel, before someone points out the inconsistency in my thought, relates to LGBT persons within the churches.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
And you are a communicant member of one of these 'major churches'?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
One can use the concept of sex without having a full working knowledge of what happens when it fucks up. I assume you meant hermaphrodites et al. Unless you mean the abominable notion that people can choose their sex, which is patently false.
Personally I find issues around gender assignment really challenging. In terms of traditional theology, in terms of secular feminism, these are difficult areas. But I am part of a world and a church where my brothers and sisters in Christ include those who for many different reasons live as a different gender from that which their parents announced at their birth. I am called to love my neighbour as myself. I may have all sort of opinions about this, opinions shaped by my faith, my feminism, my experience, my prejudices and so on, but I would hesitate to say that it is 'patently false.' Patent to whom?
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
By 'the Church hasn't', I mean the historic church, in possession of valid orders. This innovation is so staggeringly recent that to quote it as precedent is ridiculous.
But part of the historic church (in your terms) denies the validity of the orders of the part to which you and I belong. All the orders of all the ordained, male and female. Does this mean that you would not invite representatives of the Anglican Communion to the Oecumenical Council that is going to sort this all out for us? I suppose this does allow us to get around the 'do you invite the women bishops?' question which was asked (and I think remains unanswered) up-thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Liturgy is not the same thing as sacrament, just as skin colour or ethnicity is not of the same order as sex, so don' try that old canard.
Another strong statement. I am a white woman. Both of those statements describe physical attributes which are apparent to other people and may affect the way in which people relate to me. Both attributes are the outworking of my genetic make-up. Both have affected my experience of being a human being in the world and my experience of being a Christian child of God. Why are they of a different order? Who gets to decide this? Theologians? Racists? Students of black history? Feminists? Sociologists? You? Me? The Pope? Archbishop Justin?
In each of these cases you might be right, but I'm not sure that simply saying it makes it so.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
And you are a communicant member of one of these 'major churches'?
Only of the two isolated provinces of York and Canterbury which are no longer in communion with the Western church.
But that doesn't invalidate my point - we inherited our orders from the western Church.
Also, issue was about the teaching of the majority of Christians - which is RCC and orthodox
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
