|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
quote:
Could you explain this please?
All this has been covered extensively in the Rochester report, Consecrated Women? and on this board so it would probably be redundant for me to go thro' it all again.
R
You can't explain it, then.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I wonder if these events, and the emotions and attchments they engender towards one's own parish church/tradition/autonomy, will cause English Anglo-Catholic Anglicans to, if not sympathise with, then at least understand the experience of Dissenters and other Non-Conformists.
--------------------
"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
|
|
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981
|
Posted
quote:
I wonder if these events, and the emotions and attchments they engender towards one's own parish church/tradition/autonomy, will cause English Anglo-Catholic Anglicans to, if not sympathise with, then at least understand the experience of Dissenters and other Non-Conformists.
Speaking for myself, yes definitely. Don't forget Fr. stanton described himself as a "thorough going non-conformist" in matters of church polity!
R
Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jubilate Agno
Shipmate
# 4981
|
Posted
quote:
Could you explain this please?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All this has been covered extensively in the Rochester report, Consecrated Women? and on this board so it would probably be redundant for me to go thro' it all again.
R
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't explain it, then.
Actually my dear, I can and there is nothing in my posting above to suggest I can't! It would however be to no purpose because I (probably) won't change anyones mind and really I don't particularly wish to.
The job in hand (it seems to me)is to look at ways we can stay together and it saddens me that the opportunity to call those in favour heretics and those not in favour bigots (or as you suggest above in my case, ignorant or stupid) is seized with both hands but debates about how we may stay together seem to excite less interest.
As a matter of fact, judging at least by the quality of many contributions to the debate, I can put the case in favour of the OoW a damn site better than many of the proponents but at the moment I don't have the time because I am going on leave and have a lot to do today.
There are times when I am tepted to say "a plague on both your houses" and swim the river to that place where polyester albs are worn! I'm not that desparate yet!
In pacem
R
Posts: 75 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jubilate Agno:
That is exactly what I am trying to do. I do not believe that this means I should just acccepting changes which have not been adequately (or arguably justly) addressed at the expense of one "intergrity" when the other integrity has full knowledge that some of us cannot accept the changes.
This is going to sound a good bit ruder than it's meant, but I mean it genuinely.
Why are you so special?
As the Aleut pointed out, and I can tell you, Canadian and US "traditionalists" had no special provisions made for them (us?).
I'm not wild about lady priests myself. But I don't think I need a special bishop all to myself over the issue.
Why do you?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I had hoped that one of the ECUSAn shipmates might have stepped forward with detailled info on their arrangements for those who object to OWP.
First, everything is diocese-based. Resolutions implementing OWP in dioceses take effect by act of their conventions. To my knowledge (correctible), only San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Springfield are holdouts. I have heard that San Joaquin facilitates the transfer to other dioceses of women ordinands but I do not know how much that is so. Forth Worth and its neighbouring diocese of Dallas have an interesting arrangement whereby anti-OWP parishes and clergy in Dallas are transferred to FW, and vice-versa, but I gather that this is due to an agreement between the two bishops and may not survive them.
The 2000 General Convention passed a resolution establishing a team to visit these dioceses and strongly encourage them to fall into line with the rest of ECUSA (I could not find the text, but a more diligent reader of the non-searchable journal of General Convention may have better luck). The reports I read (focussing on San J and possibly partial) suggested that the reception they experienced was not what they expected- local sentiment expressed the viewpoint that this was a head office imposition, not respectful of their diocesan autonomy, and not welcome. They did not recommend any action other than further study, and support of women in these dioceses.
I imagine that 815 is assuming that, with the change of bishops which sooner or later will come, these enclaves will eventually adopt the national standard. In that eventuality, ECUSA will no longer have provision for objectors.
I suppose that clergy ordained by women priests would not be incardinated into these dioceses, but I don't know if anyone has tried.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Relevant to this thread, two weeks ago I was a volunteer at the 2nd International Ecumenical Conference on the ordination of women. Regrettably, media coverage of this event has leaned heavily on the contra legum ordination that took place afterwards of nine Roman Catholic women.
Two points in brief, which I may expound on further later:
- There's more to OoW than just Anglicans and even more than just Anglican and RCs
- There's a compelling historical record of the ordination of women pre-Tertullian -- which suggests that there's a non-trivial possibility that the undoubted manual Apostolic Succession of FiF priests and Roman priests already includes female hands.
Henry, just back from 150 km of bike ride for Multiple Sclerosis
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Procrastinus
Ship's Fortean
# 9915
|
Posted
I may be missing a huge theological point here but, aren't all the sacraments caused by God rather than the priest - e.g. forgiveness, marriage etc. In which case if the person receiving the sacrament truly believes / repents etc. why does the gender of the priest matter ?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Dare to be wise; begin.
Posts: 198 | From: Imaginary Future | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Why not start here, Procrastinus?
[ 07. August 2005, 22:22: Message edited by: seasick ]
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Procrastinus
Ship's Fortean
# 9915
|
Posted
From Fr Gregory;
quote:
Of course, if someone does NOT THINK that gender or sexuality is a deep issue then this will make no sense at all .... which is why I started the other thread on "plumbing!"
I think I must be someone - will exit thread owing to fundemental ontological mismatch. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
P.S. 15 pages ! - Is there no way of having summaries ? ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Dare to be wise; begin.
Posts: 198 | From: Imaginary Future | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fifi
Shipmate
# 8151
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
. . . To my knowledge (correctible), only San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Springfield are holdouts.
Not Springfield, but Quincy.
Posts: 591 | From: Here | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
I am amazed that this subject has been relegated to Dead Horses when it is very much up and running, now that women bishops are nearly upon us in the Church of England.
Having read back just a few pages, it is clear that the principal concern of the protagonists here is social justice/equality. The thing is, nobody can say with absolute certainty that this is the Mind of God on this subject. My own feeling is that Jesus, being counter-cultural, would have made it quite clear in his choice of disciples or in the role of the other women of his time. The arrogance of saying that we know better than Jesus rather takes my breath away. However, I do not want to add to the for/against arguments as I am sure they have all been covered in depth.
What I want to ask is, having dispensed with the authority of scripture on this issue, and also on the issues of divorce and homosexuality, what is going to follow? I expect you have all heard the ‘slippery slope’ argument before, and are probably sighing, but I would just point out that in ECUSA, where you have had women bishops for some time, a number of twice and even thrice-divorced and remarried bishops, and now an openly practicing homosexual bishop, the people are leaving at the rate of 100 a day.
I was also dismayed to see how some of the posters here have rounded on the rugby-playing priest and, even more shamefully, employed that well-used political tactic of ridiculing and attempting to discredit your opponents. I don’t know why you think he adheres to his position – to make himself popular? (It won’t). To court preferment? (It won’t – quite the reverse.) It is easy to sit around pontificating on this and that when you have nothing to lose, but think for a moment what he has to lose – and others of his persuasion. They will not be able to stay in the Church of England once we have women bishops. He is doing it because he is convinced, through theological reasoning, not fashionable ideas of fairness and equality, that it is the right (as opposed to the expedient) thing to do.
Yes, Foaming Draught, we at Anglican Mainstream are rather sad sometimes. I will take your word for it that you do not mean to be insulting here. We haven’t got a forum at the moment due to a technical hitch (I think), but most of us are there because we are dismayed at this liberal takeover of the church of our baptism (in my case over half a century ago) – the presenting issue being homosexuality, but it goes deeper than that - and the fear that we will be having to leave it when these innovations take place. Many are already looking to Rome (many have already gone) or, as in my case, Eastern Orthodoxy. It is a big and scary step, into the unknown, but better than having to stay in an apostate church like ECUSA. If you think that the loss of the orthodox, both clergy and laity, will lead to a leaner and fitter church, well, you have only to look to what is happening in ECUSA, which is dying. We are not bigots, sexists, or homophobes. We are just, like everyone else, sinners who recognise our need, and who want to remain faithful, as we, poor saps, still believe in scripture as the revealed Word of God, and don’t want to re-interpret it any more than we want to redefine ‘sin’.
I will just finish by quoting a passage from the Ordinal of the BCP (1662, which is the only version authorised in England). I have no idea what watered-down version of vows priests have to take these days, but if I were a priest or bishop contributing towards unchurching people by forcing these innovations upon them, I would be VERY afraid.
Have always therefore printed in your remembrance, how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they… (the people)… are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you must serve, is his spouse and his body. And if it shall happen the same Church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue. Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of your ministry towards the children of God, towards the spouse and body of Christ; and see that you never cease your labour, your care and diligence, until you have done all that lieth in you, according to your bounden duty, to bring all such as are or shall be committed to your charge, unto that agreement in the faith and knowledge of God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be no place left among you, either for error in religion, or for viciousness in life.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
It's Dead Horse, dear newbie, because it has been done to death on these boards. This is irrelevant to the matter of whether it has been resolved in the Court of the Church or Public Opinion. There will be no answer on this side of the afterlife, and the entrenched positions mean that allowing it run on the main boards would make the Ship like so many millions of Christian discussion sites -- chiefly repositories of arguments about this and homosexuality and other vexed issues.
Therefore, we have Dead Horses, so that these stinkers can be coralled, away from the main boards.
But you would know this if you would take the time to read the board introductions and tootle around the ship to get a sense of what we're about here.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fifi:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
. . . To my knowledge (correctible), only San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Springfield are holdouts.
Not Springfield, but Quincy.
Thanks, Fifi; I think that I once knew this but, at my advanced age, my brain can only hold so much information.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
The thing is, nobody can say with absolute certainty that this is the Mind of God on this subject.
Except, of course, for you.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Erin, how naughty of you! You have deliberately misunderstood my post!
What I am saying is that we DO NOT KNOW the mind of God on this matter, and that certainly includes me! I haven't the foggiest idea - I know lots of lovely women priests - but because I DON'T KNOW if this is the right thing to do I think it is very wrong to forge ahead with women bishops, especially as it has been done in a hasty and rather surreptitious manner. This sort of change should take place over hundreds of years, not twelve! And because of political pressure too instead of theological reasoning!
Laura, I am so thankful that this communion-breaking issue has been done and dusted, and is in need of no further discussion. What a relief! When I had spent so many nights lying awake worrying about it.
Ken, going back a few pages, where on earth did you get the figure of 200 clergy having left the Church of England over women's ordination? It was more like 600. A few have dwindled back, but two or three years ago the C of E admitted that it had spent in excess of £20 million on hardship payments to clergy who in all conscience could not accept women's orders. Heaven knows what that figure would be now, or what it is likely to be after the next mass exodus.
I do no intend to party-poop on this forum; indeed I had only intended to make the one post, but I have been knocked sideways by the kind and supportive private messages I have had, and would like to point out that (some of the) posters on this forum do not necessarily represent the majority in the Church of England.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
and would like to point out that (some of the) posters on this forum do not necessarily represent the majority in the Church of England.
Of course they don't. Many of us aren't even Anglican.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
And others don't live in England and couldn't care less about the CofE.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
spent in excess of £20 million
I am tempted to ask one question and say one thing. Can you substantiate this? and Money well spent.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Ken, going back a few pages, where on earth did you get the figure of 200 clergy having left the Church of England over women's ordination? It was more like 600.
Um.. the article you just linked to for your figures on the money derives them from this Telegraph article which says the number of clergy who had resigned and applied for the payments was 430. Your 600 figure appears to come from this gentleman
quote:
Stephen Parkinson, the director of Forward in Faith, said the true number of clergy who have resigned is nearer 600, but many did not qualify for the compensation package so were not officially registered.
This may or may not be the case but it's hardly from an impartial source.
L.
[ 23. October 2005, 14:24: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Nevertheless, 300 priests leaving the C of E due to being unhappy about women's ordination is a lot; 430 is more, and 600 a heck of a lot.
It's worth thinking a bit about what people think support for women's ordination entails, i.e. does it tend to mean one is aligned with other views too.
Many Nonconformist denomimations allowed women to be ordained long before 1992, long before the 1960s/1970s, so it can't be said that the ordination of women is simply capitulating to contemporary social and political trends.
Also the said churches permitted divorce and remarriage long before the C of E did, and long before the introduction of 'no-fault' divorce laws, and were among the first to stop disapproving of contraception. Many Anglo-Catholics on the other hand took views on these issues that were more conservative and closer to conservative Roman Catholic views.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
This sort of change should take place over hundreds of years, not twelve!
This sort of change can only ever happen immediately since it's a step-change - one moment there are no women bishops the next there are. So in that sense it's always going to seem sudden.
quote:
And because of political pressure too instead of theological reasoning!
But I thought that it was generally accepted at the time that saying there's no theological barrier to women priests is the same as saying there's no barrier to women bishops? I thought that the remaining issue was one of organisation - how to provide for those who in good conscience disagree, whether to have a third province and so on? Hence it is 'political'.
I'm not an Anglican btw.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Ken, going back a few pages, where on earth did you get the figure of 200 clergy having left the Church of England over women's ordination? It was more like 600.
Um.. the article you just linked to for your figures on the money derives them from this Telegraph article which says the number of clergy who had resigned and applied for the payments was 430. Your 600 figure appears to come from this gentleman
quote:
Stephen Parkinson, the director of Forward in Faith, said the true number of clergy who have resigned is nearer 600, but many did not qualify for the compensation package so were not officially registered.
This may or may not be the case but it's hardly from an impartial source.
L.
This is just a contribution of information - I have no axe to grind on this particular subject.
There are in fact a number of RC priests who were once Anglicans and left post-1992, but who did not receive any compensation payments from the CofE. In our diocese we have quite a good number of such (at least 12), so I think across the country an estimate of 170 in addition to 430 who did receive compensation payments is a fair estimate.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Erin, how naughty of you! You have deliberately misunderstood my post!
I just can't wait to see Erin's response to this.
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Laura, I am so thankful that this communion-breaking issue has been done and dusted, and is in need of no further discussion. What a relief! When I had spent so many nights lying awake worrying about it.
ISTM that you have misunderstood (to put it mildly) what Laura is saying, and what the purpose of Dead Horses is. Take a look at this strapline heading "Ship of Fools » "Please, Lord, not again" discussion » Dead Horses ". The point is that the discussion goes on and on and on...
Those who want to go on flogging it can do so here leaving the rest of the board free for other stuff. I dare say that if you go back more than a few pages you will find arguments like yours have been put already by others, but they have failed to have the knockdown effect required to convince the doubters and bring the discussion to a close. From the opposite point of view others have equally failed.
Laura is right - it will be Judgement Day before we can all be sure about who is right on this question - and then we will probably all find we have more important things to worry about.
[ 24. October 2005, 00:52: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Ken, going back a few pages, where on earth did you get the figure of 200 clergy having left the Church of England over women's ordination?
It is so long ago I can't remember.
quote:
It was more like 600. A few have dwindled back
Perhaps. And maybe you should count the Roman Catholic married priests, as well as some RC women, who have moved the other way?
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I am amazed that this subject has been relegated to Dead Horses when it is very much up and running, now that women bishops are nearly upon us in the Church of England.
Nope its not running. Its decided. The CofE has women priests and therefore will have women bishops. The question is whether those who don't like that will leave, or if they stay will be content with some form of continuation of the flying bishop system.
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Having read back just a few pages, it is clear that the principal concern of the protagonists here is social justice/equality.
Not mine. As you probably know I think that an all-male celibate priesthood is a side-effect or hangover of the Gnostic and anti-Christian denial of the reality of the incarnation and I oppose it for that reason.
And it has nothing to do with the homosexuality issue except that some anti-women factions have dragged that into the same discussion in order to try to recruit evangelicals to their cause. But I've said all that so often here anyone who cares has read it already.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Having read back just a few pages, it is clear that the principal concern of the protagonists here is social justice/equality.
If the promotion of social justice at the risk of offending traditionalism was good enough for the prophets of Israel and Judah, it's good enough for the rest of us.
However, you should be aware that for many it is also a profoundly theological issue (not that social justice isn't, of course, theological), in that the Jesus the Apostolic deposit, canonised in Scripture and the Creeds, leads us to believe in is a fully incarnate man who, by his incarnation, can represent the whole of humanity and creation before the Father, thus any argument about the ability or otherwise of one sex to properly represent the other is a dangerous attack on the effectiveness of Christ's work of salvation.
If the Hebrew epistoller's assertions about Christ's efficacious representation and the Chalcedonian assertion that Christ is fully human are correct, then the "iconic" argument against women's ordination is false.
[ 24. October 2005, 12:42: Message edited by: dyfrig ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
I am sorry if these have been thrown into the melting pot before, but I couldn’t see them
In Genesis 1:27 (Robert Alter’s translation):
And God created the humn in his image,
in the image of God He creted him,
male and female he creted them.
In Galatians 3:28 (NRSV):
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
The latter quotation deliberately refers to the former quotation in the use of ‘and’ between male and female.
Also the nature of ‘priest’ is not that of hieros or cohen as the word used in the Epistles is quite clearly ‘elder’ = presbyteros.
According to modern Church of England rubrics ‘minsiter’ means anyone authorised to lead a part of the service, lay and ordained. Everyone is a celebrant at the eucharist, but a person ordained priest has to preside.
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
I do have to admit that I have a weedy dial-up connection, and the loading up of pages is agonisingly slow, so to go back 15 pages would take me all day, so if you have heard all these arguments before you will have to forgive me.
When women were ordained in the Church of England, I had no particularly strong feelings about it, accepting, I suppose, that it was inevitable. Several things have happened since then, however, to make me change my mind. I am not that interested in theology as such, and finer points are for others to argue about, but my concerns are of a more practical nature.
The first was hearing about the loss of 600 clergy. I had to find out why they had all gone – surely they could not all have been grumpy old misogynists? I have read all the theological arguments for and against, and I am sure they have been gone through at length, but based on further developments I have become convinced that departure from scriptural teaching and the tradition of 2000 years has caused unprecedented division and strife, the probable side-effects of which were not given sufficient consideration at the time.
In 2002, Cost of Conscience commissioned a survey of clergy belief, conducted by the independent body Christian Research. There was an amazingly high response, so I think the figures are fairly representative. They give fascinating insight into what clergy believe – I have the booklet here in front of me – and it is difficult to reproduce tables when you have as little technical know-how as me, so I won’t bore you with all of them (yet). There are a number of groupings covered – Reform, Forward in Faith, Evangelical Alliance, Affirming Catholicism, LGCM, MCPU, etc etc and it is extremely interesting how each of these groups have responded to questions on credal belief, with the evangelical groups being the highest and LGCM and other liberal groups the lowest, which I suppose is hardly surprising. I would have at least thought that 100% of the clergy should believe in God, but although 96% of Reform clergy did, only 39% of the MCPU did, for example.
However, all this is by the by – what I wanted to say was that the belief quotient of women clergy was significantly lower – very significantly lower - on every single item (I believe in God the Father, that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all equally God being just some of these.
The implications for mission here are obvious – if you don’t believe it, why should we?
Next, we now have more women being ordained than men. For those who like proof, I expect I can find it if I put my mind to it, but I have read it in a number of places. It was certainly the case at a recent Ordination Service that I went to. This also has obvious implications. Men do tend to drop out of professions that they see as being feminized, such as teaching, so that is another thing that is likely to gather momentum. Some will see nothing wrong with having a mainly female-staffed Church, but this has to have a knock-on effect on congregations. The 1990 ratio of men to women churchgoers was 45%/55%, by 2002 it was 37%/63%. It has also been proved in studies that the attendance of fathers at church is the biggest single deciding factor in whether the children of the family will become regular worshippers. A Swiss study a few years ago found that only 1 child in 50 will become a regular worshipper if the father is not, no matter how faithful the mother. As child attendance is in freefall in the C of E, this cannot be far wrong. One of the reasons put forward by advocates of women priests was that they would draw families in, being more user-friendly. Well, that didn’t work, did it?
Next, we have GRAS. In 1992 the opponents to women priests were assured of having an honoured place in the C of E for as long as it took, i.e. the period of reception, at the end of which, over an unspecified period, the innovation would either have petered out OR the opposition would have petered out. Well, neither of these things has happened. Even after the loss of 600 orthodox clergy, Forward in Faith is growing. There are more ‘C’ parishes now, and I suspect there will be even more to come as women bishops creep closer. But this hasn’t stopped GRAS, who want to get rid of all opposition NOW. See this link to a rather nasty little advert they placed in the Church Times last year. http://trushare.com/0106MAR04/MR04GRAD.htm
Now, call me stubborn, but this really got my back up. So much for the honoured place, the period of reception, blah blah. Ten years was obviously far too long for them. I will add the link to a response to this advert by Dr John Habgood, former Archbishop of York, who was responsible for the Act of Synod and the proposed period of reception (without which the legislation for women’s ordination would not have got off the ground). http://trushare.com/0106MAR04/MR04HABG.htm
Next, there is the vexed issue of homosexuality. I am certain that this must be another dead horse, so will make no attempt to resurrect it, but there is no doubt that – like it or not - an openly practicing homosexual bishop is a real church-emptier. The two issues ARE linked, in that opening the door to scriptural disobedience by the ordination of women and remarriage of divorcees just leaves it wide open for other social pressure groups. Anyone in any doubt of this can just check up on Inclusive Church’s website, http://www.inclusivechurch.net/ , read their Declaration of Belief, and check out their comprehensive advice on how to get elected at Synod. I believe that this time around they did not do as well as they had hoped, but once we have women bishops and another exodus of orthodox clergy, how many will be left to say them nay? They are focused and determined, and they will go for the kill, make no mistake. All that will remain then will be for the people to vote with their feet and depart.
Going back to the subject of finances, I think we ain't seen nothin' yet. It's a good job Pyx-e (if C of E) doesn't object to spending his (her?) hard-earned on ex-clergy, because there are going to be a lot more of them in the not-too-far distant future! I should start saving now, Pyx-e. It seems strange that a cash-strapped church is squandering countless zillions on meetings all over the world to try to repair the damage from fall-out from disobedience to scripture. If we had all stuck to the plain teaching on these three issues, a lot of money could have been spent on far worthier causes.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ananke
Shipmate
# 10059
|
Posted
How about this: if the Anglican church in my parish didn't ordain women, I would not have converted. I work with a female priest and I would not work with a male one. Simple as that.
There won't be numbers for those of us who avoided churches/denominations because the lack of respect for women. But they are significant. How are you figuring those into your 'women priests = bad' equation?
--------------------
...and I bear witness, this grace, this prayer so long forgotten.
A Perfect Circle - Magdalena
Posts: 617 | From: australia | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
In 2002, Cost of Conscience commissioned a survey of clergy belief, conducted by the independent body Christian Research. There was an amazingly high response, so I think the figures are fairly representative. They give fascinating insight into what clergy believe – I have the booklet here in front of me – and it is difficult to reproduce tables when you have as little technical know-how as me, so I won’t bore you with all of them (yet). There are a number of groupings covered – Reform, Forward in Faith, Evangelical Alliance, Affirming Catholicism, LGCM, MCPU, etc etc and it is extremely interesting how each of these groups have responded to questions on credal belief, with the evangelical groups being the highest and LGCM and other liberal groups the lowest, which I suppose is hardly surprising. I would have at least thought that 100% of the clergy should believe in God, but although 96% of Reform clergy did, only 39% of the MCPU did, for example.
However, all this is by the by – what I wanted to say was that the belief quotient of women clergy was significantly lower – very significantly lower - on every single item (I believe in God the Father, that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all equally God being just some of these.
The implications for mission here are obvious – if you don’t believe it, why should we?
I heard about this survey at the time, but only saw bits of information about it which did not appear to be the full story. I heard that on the Do you believe questions it was not yes/no but `believe confidently/less confidently/not sure/probably not/definitely not'* and that the quoted figures were for those how ticked the most definite belief figure. This was thus misleading because people would tend to infer that the remaining percentage did not believe rather than possibly believing it with less confidence: one could find that 10% believed it confidently; 80% believed it; 5% weren't sure; 3% were semi-confident it was wrong; and 2% denied it outright. This would be quoted as 10% believed it confidently, but that masks the fact that 90% believed and only 2% denied it categorically! If this was how the survey was conducted and the result published then it doesn't entirely surprised that women have a low belief quotient
because I can quite believe that women would be less likely to tick the most definite box than men on the whole. However, nothing I saw about the survey gave sufficient detail about the methodology and exact figures so I remain dubious about it. It appeared (because they only quoted figures which supported what they wanted to show) that they were reluctant to publish the full details because it would not support their case. It may be that since there more details have been released and that I have missed them. In that case, I would like to be pointed in the direction of them
And with that I really ought to go and carry on my lying with statistics!
Carys
*I obviously can't remember exactly how it was phrased
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Flossie --
WHen you look just at the C of E, you may see a particular picture. Others don't see the same picture, but let that go for a moment.
But the ordination of women is not a C of E issue -- it's an issue throughout the anglican church -- for which the C of E does not speak, for which it does not pay, and which it certainly does not lead.
In the rest of the communion, whether you're talking about Canada and the US or Australia and New Zealand or even those "global south" (Odd that the "south" does not includes AUstralia or New Zealand. However, I digress) churches that ordain women, the effects you seem so concerned about have not happened. Partly it's because most of the rest of us started doing it a lot longer ago than the C of E. And part of it, I fear, is something unique about the C of E.
My point is only that you can't talk about OoW as a C of E issue wihtout talking about the experience of the rest of the communion. Otherwise, you are suggesting that the CofE is not part of a world-wide church, but a unique English thing with no validity anywhere else -- in fact, more English than a church.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I do have to admit that I have a weedy dial-up connection, and the loading up of pages is agonisingly slow
Its sometimes useful to click on the link at the bottom left that offers a "Printer-friendly view" which gives you a simpler copy of the whole thread. Then if you want you can save it in a local file and read it offline, even if you don't fancy printing it.
quote:
The first was hearing about the loss of 600 clergy.
But we gained far more clergy - and not all of them women. Including, as I said, some who came over from Rome. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.
quote:
the evangelical groups being the highest and LGCM and other liberal groups the lowest, which I suppose is hardly surprising.
I didn't hear anyone calling for the presses to be stopped...
quote:
However, all this is by the by ? what I wanted to say was that the belief quotient of women clergy was significantly lower ? very significantly lower - on every single item
I have a theory, which is mine, about this and will probably offend almost anybody. And may not be true.
Roughly it is that the first batch of ordained women in the Church of England included many very odd people who were not very representative of the CofE as a whole, or its women (neither are ordained men of course, but they differ in other ways) The vast majority of them were high-church Anglo-Catholics of liberal theological views. There are good reasons for this.
Most obviously, they were likely to be people who took a high view of the church, its sacraments, and ordination. Because they waited so long to be ordained, and many of them, struggled so hard to have their calling accepted. Many evangelical women in the same situation would have not held out for ordination because they simply don't think of the priesthood in the same way. They would have - many did - find some other ministry in the church. Many evangelical women who might now be ordained worked as missionaries. Others who stayed at home excercised a lay ministry of preaching and teaching maybe as a reader in a parish, or as a lecturer in a college. Because evangelicals tend not to place the same emphasis on ordination to the priesthood as some others do, there is perhaps less urgency about getting ordained if the church you are a member of doesn't seem to want you. And of course, if you really do want to be an ordained minister, there are other churches as well as the Anglican. Evangelicals are unlikely to have the kind of scruples about the validity of Methodist or URC ministry that many Anglo-Catholics might.
So Anglo-Catholics were inevitably over-represented in the first batch. And amongst them liberal Anglo-Catholics were even more over-represented, because almost by definition a very conservative Anglo-Catholic woman probably wouldn't think she could be ordained, or would be willing to submit to the church authorities who told her to forget about it.
I suspect (though its very hard to tell) that as time goes by the theological opinions of ordained women in the Church of England mroe and more come to resemble those of ordained men. (Though maybe not of the majority of churchgoers - the Anglican clergy often seem to more liberal than their congregations - but if that is a problem it is one that applies to men as well as women)
quote:
Next, we now have more women being ordained than men. For those who like proof, I expect I can find it if I put my mind to it, but I have read it in a number of places. It was certainly the case at a recent Ordination Service that I went to.
Numbers are about the same in Southwark - IIRC slightly more women are ordained but they tend to be older and are more likely to be part-time so if things go on as they are you'll be about equally likely to find a woman or a man in a pulpit. I'd be surprised if we're statistically representative of the whokl,e CofE on this though.
quote:
Men do tend to drop out of professions that they see as being feminized,
Poor dears.
quote:
The 1990 ratio of men to women churchgoers was 45%/55%, by 2002 it was 37%/63%.
I don't believe that for a moment. I've hardly ever seen a church with as many as 37% of the congreagation male, and certainly not 45% My guess would be more like 10%, 20% at the most. Anyway its irrelevant - you'd have to prove that churches with a female minister are more likely to lose male members than churches without. I doubt if that is the case.
I've heard the opposite argued - some people claim that lots of men get irritated by other men being put in what seems like authority over them, but tend to react to women priests less aggressively.
quote:
It has also been proved in studies that the attendance of fathers at church is the biggest single deciding factor in whether the children of the family will become regular worshippers. A Swiss study a few years ago found that only 1 child in 50 will become a regular worshipper if the father is not, no matter how faithful the mother.
Even if true this is irrelevant. Fathers are not being driven from church by women vicars. They moslty weren't coming to church anyway - and haven't been for decades if not centuries.
quote:
Next, there is the vexed issue of homosexuality.
Which is a different issue.
quote:
but there is no doubt that ? like it or not - an openly practicing homosexual bishop is a real church-emptier.
I agree with you entirely here. But it isn't relevant to the issue of whether the Church of England should have women bishops. Unless you think that women and homosexual men are identical?
quote:
The two issues ARE linked
Only because of the nasty tactics of some opponents of women who are trying to recruit evangelicals to support them by pretending that there is an inherent link.
quote:
in that opening the door to scriptural disobedience by the ordination of women and remarriage of divorcees just leaves it wide open for other social pressure groups.
This is insulting nonsense and you ought to apologise. There are a great many scriptutally obedient Christians who welcome the ordained ministry of women. The ordination of women is either a matter of church government (as those who ordain women claim) or theology (as most of the opponents claim). Homosexual relationships between clergy is a matter of morality. It is an unrelated issue.
And bringing divorce into it is a complete red herring. The church has argued about divorce since the begining, some taking Jesus's words in Matthew literally, others assuming that he couldn't really have meant it. You are putting all the literalists - including not only the mainstream Reformed churches but also the Orthodox - in the "scripturally disobedient" camp.
quote:
Going back to the subject of finances, I think we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Don't be silly.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
How about this: if the Anglican church in my parish didn't ordain women, I would not have converted. I work with a female priest and I would not work with a male one. Simple as that.
There won't be numbers for those of us who avoided churches/denominations because the lack of respect for women. But they are significant. How are you figuring those into your 'women priests = bad' equation?
Good heavens! What is the female equivalent of the word ‘misgynist’, I wonder. However do you cope with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit? Or are they female too? No, don’t answer that one!
I’m only kidding, ananke, don’t get cross with me! I hadn’t been aware that people actually avoided churches because they DIDN’T ordain women! However have we managed for the past 2,000 years? As this is such a new thing, there must have been a huge rush when it happened! (Which of course there wasn’t, as you will see from the figures I quoted.)
I have never said women priests are ‘bad’. I know several very lovely women priests. I believe the ordination of women to be wrong for various other reasons, most of which I have already spelt out , but not that one. I don’t know if that is what you meant.
You can hardly expect me to be sympathetic to your view, when it is the one that will be ousting me from the Church into which I was baptised over half a century ago. Judging from what is happening in some parts of the Anglican Communion you could one day find yourself being very lonely in your dream church, or are men allowed in too? If they are not, it will very quickly die, as producing children takes a man and a woman (God's idea, not mine).
I do agree, though, that the ministry of women has been undervalued in the past, and this should be put right, but priesthood is not the same as ministry.
My very favourite quote is from Mother Teresa, who, when asked what she thought about women's ordination, snapped 'women have other things to do!
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote:
When women were ordained in the Church of England, I had no particularly strong feelings about it, accepting, I suppose, that it was inevitable. Several things have happened since then, however, to make me change my mind. I am not that interested in theology as such, and finer points are for others to argue about, but my concerns are of a more practical nature.
It would seem to me, Flossie, that you cannot separate theology away from reality so easily.
Jesus did not have a very big following. If we follow the account in Luke-Acts it would seem that he had at least 70 men plus the women, and after his death, the number is given as 120 (plus women?). In spite of his ministry in Galilee, it would seem that no ‘church’ grew up there, and that this very small nucleus in Jerusalem was it.
Jesus was not particulalrly interested in a mass movement therefore, rather he was concerned with getting across the message of the truth. This message meant quite clearly challenging the assumptions of the religious leadership of his day, in their attitude to those excluded and outside the accepted ‘norm’ (women, lepers, tax-collectors, prostitutes), proclaiming ‘heretics’ such as Samaritans to be better at being the good neighbour than the orthodox.
Your lambasting of InclusiveChurch because of its attempts to share the truth that Jesus not only lived to proclaim inclusiveness but also died and rose again to proclaim it.
As I emphasised in my theological posting above yours, Paul states that through baptism there is no difference between ‘male and female’, so there can be no acceptance of such discrimination within the Church. And if there is no male and female, there should be no discrimination of those who would see themselves at not easily defined by tsuch terms outside the church, because of the inclusiveness of that statement.
This is theological, but also intensely practical, in as much as people ultimately recognise the actions of acceptance far more easily than words.
Why should the sexuality of a bishop, or a priest or a an ordinary Christian actually matter to those who have a concern for the truth rather than convention? That is the gospel truth, good news for all.
Synagogue leaders and others disliked Jesus for bringing in healing and wholeness into their places of worship, but he did it.
We are actually proclaiming good news of acceptance for all and not following a conventional norm that excludes those who are deemed to be outside the acceptable. There is the distinct possibility that the Church has become the new Pharisees.
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Carys, in response to your post, yes, you are quite right about this survey. The booklet I have is a commentary, not the complete survey (figures do my head in!) the percentages given are for ‘clergy belief without question’ for the sake of uniformity – i.e ‘clergy who claim a sure faith and have the confidence to teach it’. So the overall picture is exactly the same. I have no idea whether women are less open in their answers than men - I usually say what I believe, and would expect clergy to do the same.
It also gives male/female clergy responses to divorce, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality, and in each case again women clergy are further away from traditional Christian teaching.
Another set of figures to emerge are that the supporters of women’s ordination have lower credal beliefs than the opponents.
As an aside, there are also a number of fascinating figures quite irrelevant to this thread; for instance, only 8% - EIGHT per cent – of the liberal grouping MCPU (Modern Churchpersons Union) clergy believe ‘without question’ that Jesus Christ died to take away the sins of the world.
I am sure you could get hold of the complete survey if you wanted it. If you want to email me I might be able to point you in the right direction.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote:
My very favourite quote is from Mother Teresa, who, when asked what she thought about women's ordination, snapped “women have other things to do”!
She sounds like Martha, Flossie, asking Jesus to tell Mary to stop listening and get on doing ‘the women’s work’—however, Jesus pointed out that what Mary was doing—‘naughty, naughty, Mary’—was the right thing: sitting around and chatting ‘like the men’! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Flossie,
it's good to see a sociological angle to this debate, given that the unity and continuity of the church can be approached through it.
First, I would agree with you, given British (not just Swiss) evidence that fathers are important for the transmission of the Christian faith. I'm not convinced that female clergy are purely responsible for this though. It would IME depend on how female clergy handle their congregations. Ken is probably right, IMHO, that there are some odd people among the early batch of women ordinands. I've met some of them myself. In the evangelical Anglican church I attend, we have two male rectors and one female (she's married to one of the male rectors). There are lots of Christian, churchgoing fathers.
Second, it might be worth exploring whether female clergy function in a different way to male clergy, e.g. is the effect on the congregation different when there are both female and male clergy present, than when there is only a female vicar ?
A lot of female clergy are married to male clergy and work with their husbands, if not all of the time then some of the time; this can model for the church the notion of reconciliation in Christ between men and women. It can also function as an important corrective for the (unhealthy) tendency of some women in churches to behave as though they had a 'special relationship' with the vicar.
Having female clergy, especially if they work with husbands who are male clergy, can also function to deal with some of the problems inherent in the role of clergy wives, who can have heavy demands made of them without actually having the pastoral training to deal with people's problems.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alliebath
Shipmate
# 10547
|
Posted
quote:
A lot of female clergy are married to male clergy and work with their husbands
I cannot imagine a more dangerous or ‘incestuous’ relationship. I cannot see this as being good for the revd. married couple nor for the church they serve. I thought we had truly got away from the vicar’s spouse as the (previously) ‘unpaid’ curate.
What is this about fathers passing on tradition? If we are talking sociologically, it is actually always the mothers that do that. Hence the importance of being born a Jew!
--------------------
I regard golf
as an expensive way
of playing marbles
G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 77 | From: Far, far west of Eden | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Ken, thank you for that advice - it was helpful. I have found it irritating not being able to see what I am replying to.
Only time will tell how things will pan out on the clergy front. There are fewer and fewer churches I can go to now, more have women priests or NSMs, certainly in my neck of the woods. When an incumbent leaves, you can bet your boots that he will be replaced by a she.
I actually quite liked your theory. There is not much I disagree with there. I have lots of my own, which I would not dream of posting on any forum, for the same reasons that you gave!
I am sure the same will apply to the first batch of lady bishops. They will have to be fairly tough cookies to have survived the battle to get to that position.
Liberal Anglican clergy are certainly more liberal than their congregations. I'm sure that is one of the reasons for the exodus.
I was interested to hear about Southwark, that most liberal of dioceses. Older and part-time women ordinands was one of the things I was going to mention in my last post but I don't want to appear to have a down on women - being one myself - and knowing that older women can often bring a wealth of gifts to their ministry that younger ones cannot.
I think for most of the rest of your post I can only stand by what I have said; there is no point in going over it all again.
I have to take exception to this quote, though;
QUOTE:
-------------------------------------------------
Only because of the nasty tactics of some opponents of women who are trying to recruit evangelicals to support them by pretending that there is an inherent link.
-------------------------------------------------
(Sorry, I haven't fathomed out how to include quotes in the middle of posts.)
I don't understand who you mean. I'm not aware of tactics, or of recruiting of evangelicals. The only unpleasant tactics I have seen have been used by Inclusive Church, who are certainly not opposed to women, but have seen this issue as being a useful tool, alongside race, to promoting their real agenda.
Also this:
QUOTE:
------------------------------------------------
This is insulting nonsense and you ought to apologise. There are a great many scriptutally obedient Christians who welcome the ordained ministry of women. The ordination of women is either a matter of church government (as those who ordain women claim) or theology (as most of the opponents claim). Homosexual relationships between clergy is a matter of morality. It is an unrelated issue.
-------------------------------------------------
To whom would you like me to apologise? To you, perhaps? I can see you are a man of delicate sensibilities. I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me here. It is the question of
Going back to the subject of finances, I think we ain't seen nothin' yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be silly.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Ken, thank you for that advice - it was helpful. I have found it irritating not being able to see what I am replying to.
Only time will tell how things will pan out on the clergy front. There are fewer and fewer churches I can go to now, more have women priests or NSMs, certainly in my neck of the woods. When an incumbent leaves, you can bet your boots that he will be replaced by a she.
I actually quite liked your theory. There is not much I disagree with there. I have lots of theories my own, which I would not dream of posting on any forum, for the same reasons that you gave!
I am sure the same will apply to the first batch of lady bishops. They will have to be fairly tough cookies to have survived the battle to get to that position.
Liberal Anglican clergy are certainly more liberal than their congregations. I'm sure that is one of the reasons for the exodus.
I was interested to hear about Southwark, that most liberal of dioceses. Older and part-time women ordinands was one of the things I was going to mention in my last post but I don't want to appear to have a down on women - being one myself - and knowing that older women can often bring a wealth of gifts to their ministry that younger ones cannot.
I think for most of the rest of your post I can only stand by what I have said; there is no point in going over it all again.
I have to take exception to this quote, though;
QUOTE:
-------------------------------------------------
Only because of the nasty tactics of some opponents of women who are trying to recruit evangelicals to support them by pretending that there is an inherent link.
-------------------------------------------------
(Sorry, I haven't fathomed out how to include quotes in the middle of posts.)
I don't understand who you mean. I'm not aware of tactics, or of recruiting of evangelicals. The only unpleasant tactics I have seen have been used by Inclusive Church, who are certainly not opposed to women, but have seen this issue as being a useful tool, alongside race, to promoting their real agenda.
Also this:
QUOTE:
------------------------------------------------
This is insulting nonsense and you ought to apologise. There are a great many scriptutally obedient Christians who welcome the ordained ministry of women. The ordination of women is either a matter of church government (as those who ordain women claim) or theology (as most of the opponents claim). Homosexual relationships between clergy is a matter of morality. It is an unrelated issue.
-------------------------------------------------
To whom would you like me to apologise? To you, perhaps? I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me here. It is the question of
the authority of scripture that is at stake, nothing to do with morality. If you ignore it over one issue, you can ignore it over others. I think the orthodox would not agree with you over your claim of orthodoxy for those who ordain women.
And this:
QUOTE:
-------------------------------------------------
Don't be silly.
-------------------------------------------------
And don't you be so rude.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I don't understand who you mean. I'm not aware of tactics, or of recruiting of evangelicals.
Most evangelicals in the Church of England support the ordination of women. And most of the minority who don't support it don't see it as an issue to leave the CofE over, because they don't have to have a woman priest in their parish if they don't want one. However at least some of them get worked up over homosexual priests. So those who want to give the impression that the opposition to women priests includes many more evangelicals than it does conflate the two quite separate topics.
There is a whole rhetoric of "traditional" behind this, an attempt to achieve a hegemony of classification, to label Anglo-Catholicism as the "traditional" wing of the Church of England (instead of as an innovation within the CofE which of course it is), then to make refusal to ordain women a mark of that traditionalism (see aptly named Young Fogey's very own Hell thread), then to classify various other ideas as "traditional" in such a way as to imply that anyone who holds them must also be against women.
quote:
The only unpleasant tactics I have seen have been used by Inclusive Church, who are certainly not opposed to women, but have seen this issue as being a useful tool, alongside race, to promoting their real agenda.
Which is?
quote:
To whom would you like me to apologise?
To the many Bible-believing Christians of many denominations who think that there are circumstances in which divorced persons can remarry, For calling them "scripturally disobedient". Amongst them are not only the liberal Anglicans you think have a hidden agenda but (as I said) all the Orthodox and the Presbyterians. (There might be a lot of bad things we could say about the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith, but I don't think a lack of desire to be obedient to Scripture is one of them). And to the many Bible-believing Christians who think that God calls women to be ordained ministers of the church.
quote:
Going back to the subject of finances, I think we ain't seen nothin' yet.
I suspect that most of those who would leave have already left. Also that no amazing new financial incentives will be made available to any who wait till the consecration of the first woman bishop to find they have a tender conscience. I would think it likely - and I would hope - that some extension of the current flying bishop system will be set up, but that will be a way to keep opponents in the CofE, not to pay them off should they choose to leave.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Oh good heavens! Every time I think of logging off and going and pouring myself a glass of something nice, more posts appear! I don’t know if I have the time for all this! I had only intended to post the once but don't wish to appear cowardly - although I am really - so will do my best.
Sorry, Allie, but you cannot draw me into that one. What you have said was very interesting, but I have no recollection of Jesus ever saying that people’s sins should be included. I thought we were supposed to go and sin no more. I am very well aware that Jesus died for my sins, and on that basis try hard, but not always successfully, not to commit them.
Inclusive Church was the organisation that drove me out of church when the vicar persuaded the PCC to sign the parish up. I’m afraid I cannot go along with that. (I’m not alone, either!) This has been, and still is, a source of great grief to me.
Lady, I love your posts! I find this whole area fascinating. I do know of several married couple clergy, and a number of clergy wives who act as the ‘unpaid’ curates but do so gladly for the love of the Lord and of their husbands’ parishioners. I simply do not see it as a career move. We all, I am sure, in our own ways, however small, work for the Lord.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
I hadn’t been aware that people actually avoided churches because they DIDN’T ordain women!
Then you need to get out more. I would not be a part of a church that considered me second-class.
quote:
However have we managed for the past 2,000 years?
In the matter of the church's view of women, we've managed rather badly.
quote:
As this is such a new thing, there must have been a huge rush when it happened! (Which of course there wasn’t, as you will see from the figures I quoted.)
What does it matter whether there was a rush or not?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Flossie:
quote:
Inclusive Church was the organisation that drove me out of church when the vicar persuaded the PCC to sign the parish up. I’m afraid I cannot go along with that. (I’m not alone, either!) This has been, and still is, a source of great grief to me.
Of course, you can find people on the other side of the debate who felt obliged to move when Father decided it was time to become a 'Forward in Faith Parish'.
Personally, I don't think that PCCs should sign their congos up to campaigning organisations within the church, however much they may desire to encourage individual membership. But given that the rules don't forbid it I don't think you can blame Inclusive Church for driving you out of church, unless Giles Fraser phoned your vicar to encourage him to sign up in order to drive you out.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Next, there is the vexed issue of homosexuality. I am certain that this must be another dead horse, so will make no attempt to resurrect it, but there is no doubt that – like it or not - an openly practicing homosexual bishop is a real church-emptier. The two issues ARE linked, in that opening the door to scriptural disobedience by the ordination of women and remarriage of divorcees just leaves it wide open for other social pressure groups.
The Orthodox Church has been remarrying divorced people for quite a long time now -- hundreds of years, in fact. I am having a problem seeing how this relates to the question of the ordination of women, however. And I'm not sure how it relates to homosexuality, either, or how homosexuality relates to the ordination of women. You're drawing connections that I just can't see.
Nor can I see how you can say that the ordination of women is "scripturally disobedient." We don't ordain women in the Orthodox Church, but that has nothing at all to do with any scriptural commandment on the subject, since there isn't any such thing.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alliebath:
I cannot imagine a more dangerous or 'incestuous' relationship. I cannot see this as being good for the revd. married couipel nor for the church they serve.
Why ?
quote:
I thought we had truly got away from the vicar's spouse as the (previously) 'unpaid' curate.
I don't see your point here. If clergy marry each other, they are both paid for the work they do. No hint there of unpaid curates.
quote:
What is this about fathers passing on tradition ? If we are talking sociologically, it is actually always the mothers that do that. Hence the importance of being born a Jew!
Sorry. The evidence doesn't support you 100% there (we're talking about Christians for starters... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) Look at the Dead Horses thread on homosexuality, where I've posted links to David Voas' recent research on Christianity in the UK. That's evidence that fathers are significant in passing on the tradition. We're not talking about the passing on of the Jewish tradition here, which is different. A female Jewish philosopher recently explained this to me; something to do with having a law saying that Jewishness was passed on through the mother in case there was a problem with fathers being persecuted or killed. However, I'm afraid I can't remember exactly her reasoning. Nevertheless, she was suggesting that it was a specific law passed within the Jewish community, not a sociological trend that was happening by itself. The contemporary Christian case I'm talking about is different, because it doesn't relate to any laws passed within the church (we don't pass laws like this), but is about a sociological trend that happens.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
Oh good heavens! Every time I think of logging off and going and pouring myself a glass of something nice, more posts appear! I don’t know if I have the time for all this!
You could go pour your glass and come back tomorrow and respond to the posts which have shown up in the interim. As we have posters from practically every time zone on the Ship (3 PM here in my part of the US!), threads can go on nearly non-stop ad infinitum. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flossie
Apprentice
# 10584
|
Posted
Oh no! Not more! Still, now I have a large glass of wine in front of me. Which is probably responsible for posting half a post once and the completed one later. Sorry! And I see I have missed some posts - John Holding, I apologise, and anyone else I have missed. Is one obliged to answer them all? (Not that I have any answers, you understand, just questions.) John, do I understand from your post that churches in the countries which ordain women are growing? It’s funny because I have read that they are the ones where the Christian Church is declining, and the African and South-East Asian churches (where they don’t ordain women, or proclaim homosexuality) are the ones which are huge and growing.
Ruth W, you have obviously not read what I have posted. I do not think women are second-class. In fact I think we are much better than the blokes. (Sorry, chaps.) But that is a different matter – I am talking about priesthood. And Ruth, I think it does matter whether or not there was a rush, because if the cost of women’s ‘rights’ is a non-existent church, then I think that’s a heavy price to pay.
Callan, your second para - you don’t know how near the mark you have got there! But I had better say no more on that front. Yes, I do blame Inclusive Church. They have provided a platform for a vicar with an axe to grind, via his (or her) PCC. Don’t bother to tell me about how PCCs are independent of the incumbent, because I am too long in the tooth to not know how these things work. The vicar will merely engineer the PCC that he wants and then he can get his own way. Believe me, I have seen it all.
Ken, you are an intelligent man, I can see that, and I like (most of) your posts that I have read so far, but you don’t seem to realise that, apart from a completely separate province, there will be nowhere for Forward in Faith parishes to go once we have women bishops, apart from out. With the A of C’s recently reported offer that he would not personally consecrate women bishops, which seems to have missed the point completely, it would appear that the third province is not even on the table. Which will, I’m afraid, mean another massive exodus, because we will have women bishops whether we want them or not, and it won’t matter a **** who ordained them.
Oops, ChastMaster, I have already drunk it!
There was something that I wanted to add to my comment on ananke’s post, which has disturbed me more than most, but I can’t remember what it was. Another glass of wine, I think.
Posts: 24 | From: Greater London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Flossie:
the African and South-East Asian churches (where they don?t ordain women, or proclaim homosexuality) are the ones which are huge and growing.
If we were only talking about the Anglicans then East Asian dioceses were the first to ordain women, and many African ones have for years. Uganda is probably the largish country in the world with the largest proportion of its population attending CofE churches on a Sunday morning, and they have ordained women since 1983.
But Anglicans are a minority of Christians in Africa (though not quite as small a minority there as we are in Europe or America) and many other African churches have women ministers, including many in the Methodist and Pentecostal traditions which have been growing strongly in Africa.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
