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?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
False conscientiousness/ Stockholm syndrome.

---

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!

---

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)

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...

---

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.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem is that condoning misogyny is an impediment to that goal .

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The provisions should never have been made in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
There is a real difference between the 'catholic' objection and the ConEvo one.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
but I do think the Church of England should expect public conformity to the practices of the Church.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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......

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).

---

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!

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.

---

Posted                      

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.

---