Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Male headship bishop
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
False conscientiousness/ Stockholm syndrome.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch: quote: Originally posted by Angloid: quote: Originally posted by Pomona: What does his see look like in terms of churchpersonship? I have experience of having a male headship bishop (+Benn) but Lewes is a distinctly con evo see.
I'm a bit bemused by the idea of a diocese, let alone an episcopal area, having a distinctive churchpersonship. Of course, some take on the flavour of successive bishops to a large degree, but I don't know of anywhere in England that could be described as 'a con-evo see.' There will always be a large proportion of parishes of a different flavour, surely; even in Lewes?
Anyway, I think the idea of the 'headship' bishop is to be the equivalent for con-evos what the other flying bishops are to the F-in-F anglo-catholics. I doubt if he (and it is definitely a 'sic') will have much to do with Maidstone as such unless there are parishes there that seek his jurisdiction. But I may have got that wrong.
I think we need to be clear that there is no "Diocese of Maidstone".
As I understand it (in other words - not giving a flying fuck enough to bother checking my details), the Bishop of Maidstone will effectively be a ConEvo flying bishop, dealing with ConEvo parishes across the country which don't want to deal with their own diocesan bishops.
(What I am unclear about is whether this simply applies to ConEvo parishes who find themselves with a woman diocesan bishop, or whether ANY ConEvo parish could look to +Maidstone rather than their bishop, simply out of choice. Whilst the former is what would make most sense, I suspect that the latter is what will happen anyway.)
What is immediately clear is that +Maidstone is likely to be doing some heavy travelling. Will he be going from Carlisle to Truro and from Lewes to Norfolk? Who will be paying for this travelling? And how long will it be before the demand comes for a northern ConEvo bishop as well?
If the Church of England is going to start appointing titular bishops we should do what the Roman Catholics do and appoint them to Sees which are in partibus infidelium. I think that Bishop of Riyadh and Archimandrite of the Lone and Level Sands would look very good on the letter heading.
Presumably, he's not going to be equipped with the entirety of a Diocesan staff, so one imagines that presumably those parishes in communion with him will continue to look to their local Church House for CRBs and the like. Most Con Evo churches tend to be in the pleasant and leafy parts of the South East with good rail links (with the notable exception of Jesmond Parish Church), so generally the travelling won't be too onerous. So he'll basically do Confirmations and Ordinations in situations where the local Bishop will be deemed insufficiently manly, lead summer Bible camps and whatnot and issue ritual condemnations of gay marriage and uppity women and call for tolerance and amity when it looks like the balance of forces are against the cause of Manliness "Let The Brethren Dwell In Amity" and for rigorous policing of orthodoxy when the shoe is on the other foot "Let Us Drive The False Brethren Out From Among Us". Oh, and very little administration and an agreeable house in central London.
Nice work, if you can get it. Perhaps I'll apply. If appointed I will wear my butchest lace cotta.
-------------------- 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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Please, Callan, can I be your titular Diocesan Music Advisor? Please?
I've got my own cassock, if that helps
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: False conscientiousness/ Stockholm syndrome.
Gosh, doesn't seem to me that it's the headship folks being demeaning to women compared to this comment!
-------------------- He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I was a bit :/ about that comment too. I know a LOT of pro-headship women, and I wouldn't describe any of them as suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. That's a serious form of brainwashing and I don't think it's appropriate to use against people just because they disagree. I'm not pro-headship in the slightest and think it's misogynistic bollocks, but those who believe in it are PEOPLE. Not issues. You don't get to say they're brainwashed just because you disagree.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, on reflection that was a hasty and inadequate post. I thought about it a bit afterwards and although I would not discount the possibility of a bit of conditioning- Lukes' third face of power and all that- I wonder whether one of the attractions of 'headship' to some women, inexplicable as it would otherwise seem to be, might be that it might define a clear role and area of responsibility for women, in which they are not challenged by men. Is that a bit more plausible and explanation?
-------------------- 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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Conservative evangelicals, in my experience at least, do tend to value clearly-defined roles generally. There's definitely an attitude that God gave men and women (naturally no mention of those who are neither men nor women, whether talking about gender or sex) separate roles as a blessing.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Yes, I'd go along with that reading.
The one 'headship' believing woman I know well was formerly a Roman Catholic and of the ultra-observant kind. She has actually said the thing she found most comfortable about catholicism was the clear lines of what she should believe, and that her brief flirtation with the CofE was unsettling.
I never quite worked out why she left the RCs, other than that she was divorced by her husband (without her consent) some years after he walked out on the family: I've a feeling she felt she couldn't remain an RC as a divorcee, even if she was the one abandoned and divorced.
But now she goes to a ConEvo place and is into the 'headship' thing
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leprechaun: quote: Originally posted by Albertus: False conscientiousness/ Stockholm syndrome.
Gosh, doesn't seem to me that it's the headship folks being demeaning to women compared to this comment!
Yeah, it's consciousness, not conscientiousness. Honestly.
I know that when they need someone to go into bat for the cause of Manliness the often send a woman onto the Today programme but I'm pretty sure that the leading figures of Manliness are all, men. Call me cynical but I suspect that the high profile ladies play much the same role as Ms. Bolter was expected to play for UKIP.
It's not an exact analogy, of course. I'll be upset if my daughter announces that she has taken up with a leading player in the Headship malarkey. If she takes up with the Pound Shop Powellites my options will include a shotgun and the no dating before the age of forty rule.
-------------------- 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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I'm not at all into this male headship thing but I think it's a shame not to afford the other side the faintest sliver of a possibility that they hold their views in good faith and without borderline-pathological psychological overlay.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Agreed. I think it is false to assume that people only hold views that are disadvantageous to them personally if they have been forced into those views. People don't only believe stuff that it's in their interest to believe.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Callan: If the Church of England is going to start appointing titular bishops we should do what the Roman Catholics do and appoint them to Sees which are in partibus infidelium. I think that Bishop of Riyadh and Archimandrite of the Lone and Level Sands would look very good on the letter heading.
I was going to suggest Bishop of Dunwich, after a. the lost Saxon diocese that sank beneath the waves and b. the source of nameless Lovecraftian horrors, but it seems that post is already taken...
-------------------- 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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Given the tenor of the whole concept, I propose that all "roving" bishops should name their sees after the creations of Gordon Murray. Reading the website of the Diocese of Richborough, I would suggest that the Trumpton diocese is already in existence.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ricardus: I was going to suggest Bishop of Dunwich, after a. the lost Saxon diocese that sank beneath the waves and b. the source of nameless Lovecraftian horrors, but it seems that post is already taken...
Yes, although it is currently vacant.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mdijon: I'm not at all into this male headship thing but I think it's a shame not to afford the other side the faintest sliver of a possibility that they hold their views in good faith and without borderline-pathological psychological overlay.
I agree with this, and more importantly, it was promised as part of the agreement which has amde possible the appointemnt of women bishops.
"The Church's bishops committed themselves to making episcopal provision for conservative evangelicals as well as traditionalists as the legislation to consecrate women bishops progressed successfully through General Synod and Parliament earlier this year."
Whatever people might feel about these dinosaurs, misogynists or whatever you think them to be, the House of Bishops of the Church of England is committed to the five guiding principles which accompany the legislation. Priciple 4 calls for those who oppose the majority to be permitted to "flourish" within the existing life and structures of the C of E.
It would be a mistake to start this process with bad faith. An agreement has been reached, which has taken years to achieve, and caused gridlock in the C of E for a decade. It really is time for all sides to stop grumbling and get on with the momentous task of reversing the secularisation of Britain.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The problem is that condoning misogyny is an impediment to that goal. If the church is equivocal about whether it opposes the oppression and subjugation of women then why would anyone look to it for moral or spiritual leadership?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: The problem is that condoning misogyny is an impediment to that goal .
If you think that appointing a ConEvo or a Forward in Faith bishop is "condoning misogyny" then what do you make of the five guiding principles? Should they be abolished, now the vote has gone in favour? What of the integrity of House of Bishops in making those provisions?
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I must say I wouldn't have made those promises if it was me. But I don't wear purple or have access to funny hats/sticks and I wasn't consulted. And perhaps that was the only way of getting the changes through. So having made the promises, yes I would feel obliged to stick to them.
(By the way I think it is consistent to be uncompromising in terms of the desired political solution while still presuming good faith on the part of one's opponents).
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by PaulTH*: If you think that appointing a ConEvo or a Forward in Faith bishop is "condoning misogyny" then what do you make of the five guiding principles? Should they be abolished, now the vote has gone in favour? What of the integrity of House of Bishops in making those provisions?
The provisions should never have been made in the first place.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
As I say above I agree - but what if that would have resulted in no progress at all? Personally I respect a little use of realpolitik, but only if done with integrity.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ricardus: Agreed. I think it is false to assume that people only hold views that are disadvantageous to them personally if they have been forced into those views. People don't only believe stuff that it's in their interest to believe.
And, of course, there are plenty of free thinking educated women who have come to this point of view because they think it is to their advantage.
Some of this theological bias - they think it is in the Bible and therefore must be good.
But some is lived experience. I remember speaking to a woman once who worked part time in a public body with an extensive equalities policy, and part time for a "headship" style church. Her reflection was that the men in the church treated her much better, more respectfully, with more concern for her perceptions, feelings and opinions than any men (even those who worked for her!) did in her other job.
Which is not an argument for headship. But does explain why some women seem so strongly in favour of it.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Leprechaun that is interesting. What kind of role did she have in the church? In headship churches usually the only women working for them are in youth and children's work (the acceptable church work role for Nice Christian Girls!), or in women's ministry if the church has such a thing. Or, of course, the pastor/vicar/curate's wife, which though unpaid is really a job in itself.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Pomona: Leprechaun that is interesting. What kind of role did she have in the church? In headship churches usually the only women working for them are in youth and children's work (the acceptable church work role for Nice Christian Girls!), or in women's ministry if the church has such a thing. Or, of course, the pastor/vicar/curate's wife, which though unpaid is really a job in itself.
I'm not sure - it was some sort of pastoral role - I guess primarily with women as you say. It was only a passing conversation!
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by PaulTH*: If you think that appointing a ConEvo or a Forward in Faith bishop is "condoning misogyny" then what do you make of the five guiding principles? Should they be abolished, now the vote has gone in favour? What of the integrity of House of Bishops in making those provisions?
I would say (and have argued) that we (the CofE) should certainly make provision as promised for the minority views on this issue. But..
1. There is a real difference between the 'catholic' objection and the ConEvo one. Those opposed for catholic/traditional reasons think that the ministry of the bishop is essential to the church, and that women (or those who derive their orders from women) can't be bishops. ConEvos who object do so because of perceived biblical limits on female authority.
2. Therefore, while there is a catholic argument (a bad one, in my view, but still) for having a special line of bishops, all of whom are guaranteed able to piss standing up, kept pure and distinct for the catholics in perpetuity, all the ConEvos need is a cock under the mitre right now. The me-too-ism of the demand for a specific office to be set apart for a 'headship' bishop isn't something that needs to be accepted as necessary to accommodate the ConEvo position.
3. The idea that a member of the church needs to have a bishop with whom he or she agrees on an issue about which Christians may in good faith differ is distinctly unAnglican. It doesn't happen on any other issue. There is a diversity of opinions in the pews, and a diversity of opinions among the bishops, and that's all good, but we don't, as a church, generally think that fair provision has not been made for A. N. Churchgoer if he happens to have a bishop with whom he disagrees.
And, yes, appointing a bishop for the express purpose of ensuring that no one in a sub-set of the church need ever take orders from a person with a vagina is, quite blatantly, condoning misogyny. If we promised to do it as part of the price of allowing women whom God is calling exercise their vocations, then we may be morally obliged to condone misogyny to that extent, but we don't need to pretend that it's anything other than what it is.
-------------------- "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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Met up with some of my extended family who are almost exclusively into the male-headship thing.
Very interesting conversations - and I managed not to lose my temper! But the most interesting thing was the admission by nearly all of them that as far as they're concerned the only point of the whole 'we must have our own meal-headship-believing-bishop' thing is to do with getting a voice in the House of Bishops, etc.
As one put it: we actually don't see the point of bishops, we don't want them or need them, but since we're under the umbrella of the CofE which has them, then we'll have one who fits in with us. But if the Archbishop thinks that means we accept him as a leader or having authority he's quite wrong.
Food for thought?
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: Met up with some of my extended family who are almost exclusively into the male-headship thing.
Very interesting conversations - and I managed not to lose my temper! But the most interesting thing was the admission by nearly all of them that as far as they're concerned the only point of the whole 'we must have our own meal-headship-believing-bishop' thing is to do with getting a voice in the House of Bishops, etc.
As one put it: we actually don't see the point of bishops, we don't want them or need them, but since we're under the umbrella of the CofE which has them, then we'll have one who fits in with us. But if the Archbishop thinks that means we accept him as a leader or having authority he's quite wrong.
Food for thought?
That fits in with my experience. ConEvos see bishops as pastor-managers, essentially, no kind of sacramental role.
-------------------- Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: The provisions should never have been made in the first place.
This may be so, but as opponents of the provision such as mdijon and Eliab have acknowledged, they have been made, so do you dispute that the Church of England is morally obliged to honour them? You have to remember that when the November 2012 Synod defeated the measure, it was probably because sufficient numbers thought that an absence of prvision for dissenters was wrong. Not that they didn't want women bishops. And there was the threat that parliament might take the matter out of the hands of the C of E, so the House of Bishops came up with proposals which have been carried by the Synod, and by parliament. That must be considered morally binding if the Church is to have any integrity.
quote: Originally posted by Eliab: There is a real difference between the 'catholic' objection and the ConEvo one.
There has been a very unholy alliance between Forward in Faith and ConEvo's and I say that because they have nothing whatever in common in what they believe the Church to be. As L'Organist points out, ConEvo's don't even believe in bishops. When I was a member of FiF, I never had any theological difficulties with women in the priesthood, just a hope for the ecclesiology of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I believed the C of E to be a part. Now that I've returned after finding the Ordinariate not for me, I do so in full acceptance of what the C of E has decided.
quote: If we promised to do it as part of the price of allowing women whom God is calling exercise their vocations, then we may be morally obliged to condone misogyny to that extent, but we don't need to pretend that it's anything other than what it is.
Yet I still agree with this. Promises made to win votes carry commitment. They are churchmen, not politicians!
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by PaulTH*: This may be so, but as opponents of the provision such as mdijon and Eliab have acknowledged, they have been made, so do you dispute that the Church of England is morally obliged to honour them? You have to remember that when the November 2012 Synod defeated the measure, it was probably because sufficient numbers thought that an absence of prvision for dissenters was wrong. Not that they didn't want women bishops. And there was the threat that parliament might take the matter out of the hands of the C of E, so the House of Bishops came up with proposals which have been carried by the Synod, and by parliament. That must be considered morally binding if the Church is to have any integrity.
The problem is that the provisions themselves lack any integrity - the Church has the option of perpetuating misogyny or admitting that it made a mistake, returning to synod and placing the responsibility for providing alternative provision solely in the hands of and at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop. I've no desire to see the Church of England try and expel folk who believe these things, but I do think the Church of England should expect public conformity to the practices of the Church. I expect, for example, Holy Communion to be celebrated only by Priests, even if some members of the CofE are convinced that the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers allows anyone to celebrate. The Church considers the ministry of men and women to be equally valid, and as far back as the 20s and 30s the Lambeth Conference was urging all provinces to provide for women to lead worship and to preach, even if ordination was not then approved. The headship doctrine has not been part of Anglican teaching in living memory, and headship supporters cannot make the same claim as Anglo-Catholics that the church has moved while they have not.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Personally, I think that the "provisions" were ill-advised and actually unnecessary. I think it showed a complete lack of faith in the rightness of what the C of E was doing.I am not saying that those who disagree should be ejected forcibly, but that there needs to be a clear statement of what the C of E believes in this matter. It cannot, in integrity, say that it commits itself wholeheartedly to equality between men and women if it is also making peculiar provisions which perpetuate antiquated and unjust practices and beliefs.
Having said that, the provisions WERE made. So the C of E has to abide by them. But I would say this - that there should be no repeat of the debacle over women priests, where people were making promises "for all time" that clearly could not be kept. In other words, these provisions have to have some sense of "provisionality" about them. They cannot be set in stone - they must be reviewed in the future. To put it bluntly - they should have clearly marked "Best Before" date on them...
Personally, I find these provisions highly regrettable and I would find it very hard to now return to the C of E whilst they are in place. Living and working within a deeply unjust organisation, whose discriminatory practices I cannot support, is something I don't want to do any more - for the sake of my own integrity and spiritual well-being.
-------------------- Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: but I do think the Church of England should expect public conformity to the practices of the Church.
I think it does already, because priciple 2 is:
[2] Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must be prepared to acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter;
there may be some of these Headship types, and FiF supporters who still disagree with the outcome, but their ministers have to acknowledge the settled will of the Church of England. My opinion would be let's hit the ground running and see how the arrangements work. They can always be put to the Synod again if pressure groups don't abide by the spirit of the principles, but they require a two thirds majority in every House for change.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
There is quite a difference between the (rather general) principles we accepted in GS and the specifics of what is or might be happening. It is the latter to which many are objecting.
For example, we might well want all people of whatever view on O/W to flourish in the CofE, but it is the flourishing of the people and not necessarily the views that is in view. So we do not want to drive people out just because we disagree with them, but we may need to say that we cannot condone all their views. This is precisely where we are at with the 'headship' bishop. Certain forms of headship doctrine are adrift from Trinitarian orthodoxy so we have to say 'not on those grounds' and certain forms lead to misogyny so we have to say no there too.
The bishops' declaration offered a voice in the college (not house) of bishops to the headship view - there is still a lot of scope for different ways for this to be delivered.
-------------------- "I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Charles Read You don't seem to get it: the whole 'doctrine' of headship is anathema to many of us and for good reason since it effectively devalues over 50% of the regular worshippers in the Church of England.
Now I'm aware that many ConEvos are no more genuinely CofE than a cat, but that doesn't mean that we should let them get away with their obnoxious bigoted and biased behaviours. Talk of 'complementarity' is not any kind of excuse, its just a BS attempt to defend the indefensible.
And the headship and complementarity nonsense is also damaging to the many women who don't fit into the "wives-mothers-homemakers" mould approved of by the ConEvos.
As for keeping some nebulous promise made by the ABC: ++Justin had no business to make any such commitment and if he is now shown to have been either taken in by or bending rules for the ConEvo lobby good - maybe people will wake up to the fact that he was a bad choice for Durham and a catastrophic choice for Canterbury.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: Charles Read You don't seem to get it: the whole 'doctrine' of headship is anathema to many of us and for good reason since it effectively devalues over 50% of the regular worshippers in the Church of England.
Odd that you say CR doesn't get it - I don't think he's arguing for male headship or tolerance of male headship at all.
-------------------- mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: And the headship and complementarity nonsense is also damaging to the many women who don't fit into the "wives-mothers-homemakers" mould approved of by the ConEvos.
I call bollocks. As many people have pointed out on this thread (and you have ignored) many headship proponents are professional women.
-------------------- He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fullgospel
Shipmate
# 18233
|
Posted
New bishop of Stockport announced --
to be Bishop Libby
-------------------- on the one hand - self doubt on the other, the universe that looks through your eyes - your eyes
Posts: 364 | From: Rubovia | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leprechaun: As many people have pointed out on this thread (and you have ignored) many headship proponents are professional women.
Although the point's worth making that no special provision is needed to accommodate this class. Women who, for theological reasons, are happy to concede some measure of primacy to men can do this of their own free will in any insitutional structure likely to prevail in the church.
We only need to make accommodation when we are trying to prevent women who do not have such scruples from actually being in authority. The effect of institutionalising male headship is not to enable women who freely wish to submit (they can do that anyway), it is to frustrate those women who don't believe in headship from fulfilling any vocation that they may have to leadership.
Assuming that headship-believing women have no problem with women's leadership of other women, but only of them being in charge of men, the only people who need protecting from women bishops are headship-believing men. There's something just ever so slightly ridiculous about all these masculine men with this inherent natural authority and God-given headship pleading for institutional protection in case they end up having to do what a woman tells them.
Fine, if we promised to look after them, then let's agree that believing in headship isn't automatically a bar to ministry so long as you accept that you're part of a church that does not believe or practice it, and let's agree always to have at least one male bishop available to cater for anyone who's really really scared of women being in charge, but I can see absolutely no reason to set aside a particular church office for male sexists only. That seems to me to be calculated to make us look bigotted and foolish.
-------------------- "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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Eliab: quote: Originally posted by Leprechaun: As many people have pointed out on this thread (and you have ignored) many headship proponents are professional women.
Although the point's worth making that no special provision is needed to accommodate this class. Women who, for theological reasons, are happy to concede some measure of primacy to men can do this of their own free will in any insitutional structure likely to prevail in the church.
Well quite. The actual arrangement is obviously a mess of pottage. I was disagreeing with the idea that the pro headship women are all wives and mothers. Just not the case IME.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I wasn't saying that pro headship women are all wives, mothers & homemakers; I was saying that for some believers in headship - especially male proponents - the accepted female roles are those of wife, mother & homemaker.
I know there are professional women who go along with the headship business - I've met a few; But you cannot use them as a figleaf to cover the belief by a lot of the male headship clan that would see a woman's professional life as being secondary to any familial responsibilities she might have.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: I wasn't saying that pro headship women are all wives, mothers & homemakers; I was saying that for some believers in headship - especially male proponents - the accepted female roles are those of wife, mother & homemaker.
I know there are professional women who go along with the headship business - I've met a few; But you cannot use them as a figleaf to cover the belief by a lot of the male headship clan that would see a woman's professional life as being secondary to any familial responsibilities she might have.
Actually you said that headship was damaging to women who didn't want to be wives and mothers. Which is rubbish.
And I think that a woman's professional life should be secondary to their family life. Strangely I also think that about men and their jobs.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We have never had flying bishops for any reason here and are most unlikely to get them. The nearest was when CCSL would invite + Riverina to visit and carry out some confirmations at the same time.
Surely it is now too late to complain abut their introduction to cater for those who espouse male headship? That was the deal done to enable the appointment of women bishops. Disagree as we may with the deal, it having been made it should be honoured.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ahleal V
Shipmate
# 8404
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Charles Read: For example, we might well want all people of whatever view on O/W to flourish in the CofE, but it is the flourishing of the people and not necessarily the views that is in view. So we do not want to drive people out just because we disagree with them, but we may need to say that we cannot condone all their views.
Are you the Charles Read of WATCH? Can I be clear that you're saying that it's ok to be a traditionalist, but not for traditionalists to spread their views, because if so, that more than slightly creepy. It's downright sinister.
x
AV
Posts: 499 | From: English Spires | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Nothing creepy or sinister about that, if it is what he's saying: by all means stay and work out your vocation within the CofE of you can, but don't try to undermine the settled position that the Church has taken.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ahleal V: Are you the Charles Read of WATCH? Can I be clear that you're saying that it's ok to be a traditionalist, but not for traditionalists to spread their views, because if so, that more than slightly creepy. It's downright sinister.
x
AV
I think it's just treating headship in the same way as other heterodox, bordering on heretical, viewpoints - you can believe it all you want, you can tell other people that's what you believe, but you must accept that the church should not facilitate you promoting those views. That applies whether it is headship, ultramontanism, donatism, Arianism or anything else.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Leprechaun: quote: Originally posted by L'organist: I wasn't saying that pro headship women are all wives, mothers & homemakers; I was saying that for some believers in headship - especially male proponents - the accepted female roles are those of wife, mother & homemaker.
I know there are professional women who go along with the headship business - I've met a few; But you cannot use them as a figleaf to cover the belief by a lot of the male headship clan that would see a woman's professional life as being secondary to any familial responsibilities she might have.
Actually you said that headship was damaging to women who didn't want to be wives and mothers. Which is rubbish.
And I think that a woman's professional life should be secondary to their family life. Strangely I also think that about men and their jobs.
IME, headship views are damaging to woman who don't want to be wives and mothers, and to those who (God forbid) want to work *and* have a family. But I grant we all have different experiences, and this could all get a bit panto (Oh yes it does, oh no it doesn't).
This reminds me of the everyday sexism type conversations - just because I personally haven't been wolf-whistled, sexually harassed and followed down the street recently, doesn't mean it isn't still happening to other women.
And oh! for the time when family life takes precedence for men and women. But in my experience and those of my (working mother) friends, women are still expected to take the career hits both short and long term - by their colleagues, their bosses, society in general and ourselves, God help us, and so there are fewer women higher up the work chain, we don't apply for the jobs, and lo the merry go round continues.
Er. Sorry. I may have got somewhat carried away there......
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jemima the 9th: IME, headship views are damaging to woman who don't want to be wives and mothers, and to those who (God forbid) want to work *and* have a family. But I grant we all have different experiences, and this could all get a bit panto (Oh yes it does, oh no it doesn't).
Yes. I have certainly seen this in (especially non-conformist) conservative circles. My point in this discussion is that a lot of the Anglican pro-headship people seem to be professional women. So a suggestion that part of this movement in Anglicanism at this moment is to confine women to the home seems...well...untrue.
quote:
And oh! for the time when family life takes precedence for men and women. But in my experience and those of my (working mother) friends, women are still expected to take the career hits both short and long term - by their colleagues, their bosses, society in general and ourselves, God help us, and so there are fewer women higher up the work chain, we don't apply for the jobs, and lo the merry go round continues.
Well yes. Although to lay this problem at the feet of Christians who believe in male leadership in the church seems somewhat unfair!
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
And here he is: Voila!
-------------------- "I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Looks like just the sort of stinker you might expect. I hope that his ministry is short and unfulfilling. Shame on the CofE for ever agreeing to create such an abominable appointment. I am so pleased that I moved to Wales.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: Looks like just the sort of stinker you might expect. I hope that his ministry is short and unfulfilling. Shame on the CofE for ever agreeing to create such an abominable appointment.
Couldn't have put it better myself, Albertus. Although on a personal level, it's nice to see the CofE confirming that my retiring was the right thing to do.
-------------------- "What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
From the Lambeth Palace press release quote: Rod Thomas’s specific duties as Bishop of Maidstone will include: fostering vocations from those taking a conservative evangelical position on headship; undertaking episcopal ministry (with the agreement of the relevant diocesan bishop) in dioceses in both Provinces where PCCs have passed the requisite resolution under the House of Bishops’ declaration; and being available to act (again by invitation) as an assistant bishop in a number of dioceses.
So much for bishops as a "focus of unity". I suppose that only applies to exclude (celibate) gay people. It's fine if you're a sexist, homophobic member of the Executive Committee of the so-called Anglican Mission in England.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The whole thing is a ghastly clerical error. They were planning to appoint Rod Liddle and there was a typo in the press release.
Well, it could have been worse...
Um. I'll get back to you with regard to that one.
-------------------- 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
|
|