|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Flipping Synod - especially the Lay People!
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
In 1992 General Synod voted for women to become priests by 2 votes and it was deemed to be the work of the Holy Spirit.
In 2012 General Synod said, "not like this" to women bishops by 6 votes and it was deemed be a travesty of justice.
Such are the dangers of subjectivism.
The Church should be consistent, not just insistent.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In 1992 General Synod voted for women to become priests by 2 votes and it was deemed to be the work of the Holy Spirit.
In 2012 General Synod said, "not like this" to women bishops by 6 votes and it was deemed be a travesty of justice.
Such are the dangers of subjectivism.
The Church should be consistent, not just insistent.
I made just this point to a colleague this morning. My problem with the vote (rather than the principle) is that the vote in the house of laity was so very unrepresentative of the position in the dioceses. I haven't done the maths, but if the diocesan reps in General Synod had voted in a way which better represented the vote in their diocesan synods*, I'm pretty sure that the measure would have passed. I appreciate the difference between representatives and delegates, but this gap between General and Diocesan Synods is (IMHO) where a great deal of the bad feeling generated by this vote originates. At the very least the 42:2 diocesan vote has given very convenient ammunition to those who object to the outcome at General Synod.
anne
*so that in a diocese with 5 representatives on GS which voted 60% in favour at Diocesan Synod, the representatives voted 3 for, 2 against.
--------------------
‘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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But what does 'Great Urgency' mean in the CofE?
They'll try and get to it before Prince William's child comes to the throne.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In 1992 General Synod voted for women to become priests by 2 votes and it was deemed to be the work of the Holy Spirit.
In 2012 General Synod said, "not like this" to women bishops by 6 votes and it was deemed be a travesty of justice.
Such are the dangers of subjectivism.
The Church should be consistent, not just insistent.
I made just this point to a colleague this morning. My problem with the vote (rather than the principle) is that the vote in the house of laity was so very unrepresentative of the position in the dioceses. I haven't done the maths, but if the diocesan reps in General Synod had voted in a way which better represented the vote in their diocesan synods*, I'm pretty sure that the measure would have passed. I appreciate the difference between representatives and delegates, but this gap between General and Diocesan Synods is (IMHO) where a great deal of the bad feeling generated by this vote originates. At the very least the 42:2 diocesan vote has given very convenient ammunition to those who object to the outcome at General Synod.
anne
*so that in a diocese with 5 representatives on GS which voted 60% in favour at Diocesan Synod, the representatives voted 3 for, 2 against.
But given that many of the diocescan synods added a motion calling for a provision for opponents, and the general synod minority deemed the proposal was unacceptable, then it's not as simple as you are suggesting.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But what does 'Great Urgency' mean in the CofE?
They'll try and get to it before Prince William's child comes to the throne.
That and the "Flower Rota" question, as mentioned by Chesterbelloc.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But given that many of the diocescan synods added a motion calling for a provision for opponents, and the general synod minority deemed the proposal was unacceptable, then it's not as simple as you are suggesting.
Oh no, not simple at all, I do appreciate that. But I was trying to separate out some of the different sources of the pain and anger that have emerged since the General Synod vote.
For myself, I think that bitching about the narrowness of the vote in the House of Laity misses the point. It's not helpful to hunt around for 6 people we can blame for 'doing it wrong.' And, as has been said, when votes have gone narrowly in a direction we approve of, we don't go on about it. It certainly adds to the frustration that the vote was so close, but, well, thems the rules.
I think that there is a more solid basis for the anger that I am hearing from members of congregations, deanery and diocesan synods, that their voice has been ignored. They heard the arguments, they listened and read the texts and they (the members of synods) voted. And then, after all that, their GS reps ignored them. There's real anger and pain there. Of course, the people I talk to mostly (not exclusively) support the consecration of women to the episcopate, so I may be overestimating how widespread this anger is.
There is a whole other discussion to be had about the motion for provision which was added at diocesan and deanery synods. For example, when an identically worded motion has been passed to 44 separate synods for debate and votes so that it can return to General Synod, what is anyone doing adding extra wording? Possibly I am simply cross here that the 'opposition' were so well organised locally and nationally. My own frustration at deanery level was largely caused by listening to the eloquent speeches and watching the principled voting against the consecration of women as bishops of members of the house of clergy whom I had never seen or heard at any deanery event before or since.
But no, it's not simple, I agree.
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
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
On reflection, I do think that the House of Bishops have some blame for what went on.
When the matter went out to the Diocesan Synods, that should have been the end of it. No more tinkering or amending, unless diocesan synods clearly and comprehensively indicated that something needed to be changed. They didn't. They voted 42 out of 44 in favour of what was being offered.
Now that SHOULD have had an immense moral weight. It should then have become nigh on impossible for people to consider voting the measure down in General Synod. But instead, the House of Bishops decided to try and tinker yet further - disastrously so as it turned out.
But whether the dreaded 5c clause was passed or not is actually beside the point. The mere fact that the bishops were still tinkering with the measure AFTER diocesan synods had voted on it meant that everyone else had the implicit permission to push for additional changes and amendments. And so the moral weight behind the overwhelming diocesan votes for the measure was dissipated.
I thought then and think even more now that the bishops' amendments were ill-advised. They just were not needed and all they did was say to those opposing the measure "things are still up for grabs." What the bishops should have been saying clearly is "this is what is on offer. There is overwhelming diocesan approval for it and so nothing more will be added to it."
My suspicion is that, had this been done, enough of the no-voters would have felt that it was their duty to honour the diocesan votes and would have voted yes instead.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Plus those Bishops whose houses’ of laity were clearly “influenced” toward a certain direction should have shown both greater leadership in ensuring the elections were more hotly contested AND let their brother bishops know that there was a sizeable chunk of “no” votes coming from their diocese (though I guess not doing the first makes doing the second shamefully unlikely).
A train wreck, a plague on all three of their houses.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Synod doesn't have teaching authority would be my guess.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
And no one has any control over the use of the word "Christian"; - Voice, - Union, - Democratic Party, are examples.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Synod doesn't have teaching authority would be my guess.
Thurible
Maybe they're allowed to vote if their husbands are there too.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
A pretty decent parody, I would say. Thanks
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
