Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict: I hope I will be forgiven for not reading the billions of posts in this thread before commenting...
Fortunately, not even the renowned SOF opinionati are that prolific.
The theory in the unnamed book you mention would seem to confute the Mass/Eucharist/Liturgy, at least to some extent, with both the Ancient Fertility Religions and Magic. It has been posited previously, if not on this thread.
Your priest would, I suspect, be well aware of this theory and it might be quite enlightening for you to hear what he and the Church think of it.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Zappa: (sorry - not meaning to stalk you!)
That puts a whole new perspective on what I do each Sunday. I've never enjoyed it that much! Phwarrrr!
Oooh, I've never had a stalker before! What fun!!
Meanwhile, yes it does change the perspective, but it is really just a trace memory of an ancient approach to belief by now, if that. About on the same level as the requirement for an all male priesthood; there is a very real certainty in some quarters that this is vital, without any real ability to say why.
We retain belief in the Church herself as the Bride of Christ, but we have conveniently sanitised any prurient imagery out of Christianity completely. We have a virgin mother, a celibate Second Person, a first person who creates by his word and a third person who does his creating in a very polite, non invasive way. We really couldn't get further away from Ledo and the Swan if we tried.
Sexual imagery in the Mass? The blessed Augustine would turn in his grave.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): Your priest would, I suspect, be well aware of this theory and it might be quite enlightening for you to hear what he and the Church think of it.
Thank you for the very many buried presuppositions in that sentence. Most entertaining.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
Sources of the Grail. John Matthews.
A far better read than I have indicated so far; it looks in detail at all extant versions of the grail mythology, in order to attempt to trace family resemblances and suggest an origin.
One possible origin is in ancient Egyptian mythologies, but it is only a possibility. Along the way the comment is made that temples/churches are almost invariably female, and that the Grail/chalice itself is a female symbol. Which is rather lovely, I think. If we want to think in Catholic terms, it can become an archetype for Our Lady, who is herself an archetype for the Ark of the Covenant.
As with any imagery, if we take it too far (or too literally) it breaks down and becomes meaningless, but as symbol it can be very beautiful.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict: quote: Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): Your priest would, I suspect, be well aware of this theory and it might be quite enlightening for you to hear what he and the Church think of it.
Thank you for the very many buried presuppositions in that sentence. Most entertaining.
Pretty obvious really.
Ah yes: John Matthews. I think you'll find he's somewhat of an occultist.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote: Oh yes: John Matthews. I think you'll find he's somewhat of an occultist. [/QB]
And I think you will find that I am not.
But I do not I limit my reading to nihil obstat only.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Caveat emptor (Buyer beware).
Nuff said.
Theoretically, you are a responsible adult, like everyone else.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): Caveat emptor (Buyer beware).
Nuff said.
Theoretically, you are a responsible adult, like everyone else.
I am indeed always responsible; far too much so.
The adult bit is questionable, though.
[ 24. July 2012, 07:40: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anglo Catholic Relict: quote: Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd): Caveat emptor (Buyer beware).
Nuff said.
Theoretically, you are a responsible adult, like everyone else.
I am indeed always responsible; far too much so.
The adult bit is questionable, though.
You know yourself best.
-------------------- Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Originally posted by lianej: quote: males look better in the albs
I've got a great bridge to sell you...
-------------------- "Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Oh, My God...
-------------------- I cannot expect people to believe “ Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.” Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
*Bump*
-------------------- 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
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
This thread is STILL around? Wow!
-------------------- Siegfried Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Yes, people are still discussing whether women should be ordained!
Top tip - If you're feeling adventurous, scroll up to the top of any page on the thread and directly above where it says 'special interest discussion', you'll see a little icon of a printer and a link saying 'printer friendly view'. Click there to get the thread as one immensely long page. You can then use Control-F and the relevant key-words to search for all the people who've made your favourite arguments before, and see how they were answered. See if you can come up with something new or rebut the best arguments against them! [ 25. July 2013, 23:46: 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
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Bumping this up to have a look at the controversy around The Nines Conference which is a large American gabfest with a distinctive note: of more than 110 speakers, just 4 were female.
Rachel Held Evans made this fact public, and this got some of the non-hierarchical church leaders rather upset, to the extent of calling her "divisive" (not to mention "Whiny and shrill"
Obviously it is rude of someone in the not-recognised group to mention that the privileged group is, indeed, privileged. But RHE deals with that quite well in her post "on being divisive"
RHE is used to dealing with big-boys-with-cootie-problems, so I'll leave her to write.
But I was struck by the photo heading Merritt's article.
Why was my immediate reaction "Nuremberg rally"?
I thought I was reading about a Christian event! or ITIWRAACE for those in the know.
-------------------- It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Well, I wouldn't have thought of Nuremberg without prompting - because of the higgledy-piggledy arrangement of the people with their arms up. A carefully selected piccie, I think.
Now I'll read it.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Horseman Bree: Rachel Held Evans made this fact public, and this got some of the non-hierarchical church leaders rather upset, to the extent of calling her "divisive" (not to mention "Whiny and shrill"
Any woman who says unpopular truths will be called shrill. Male privilege hates being called out.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I heard someone from the Church of England on the radio earlier today talking about the forthcoming Synod, saying that only permitting men to be bishops* wasn't discriminatory because the church isn't a workplace but a family, and of course everyone's fine with the idea of there being different roles in a family.
I know it's come up before (this thread? others?) but I think this idea of priests not actually being employees is a ludicrous fiction basically intended to avoid having to follow anti-discrimination laws and the like.
If churches want the people with responsibility / authority to not be subject to employment law then ISTM they need to go down the simple / organic church route of having no staff and no formalised structures. And that's unlikely to happen in churches with big, hierarchical structures like the C of E!
*Can't remember for sure, but she might have been saying only men should be priests of any sort (while acknowledging that ship has already sailed).
-------------------- My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
SCK,
Let me assure you that if there is one thing which gets the C of E hierarchy in a state of panic faster than the word "homosexual" it is the phrase "employment rights".
I couldn't agree with you more. The whole thing is a farce, especially when you consider that the same C of E hierarchy has spent a lot of the past decade seeking to make itself look more and more like "employers". Terms of service, disciplinary procedures, performance appraisal - I'm not against any of them, but surely at some point someone is going to say "if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and it has webbed feet like a duck, it's not an ostrich."
-------------------- Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
Recently been doing some reading on the internet about the ordination of women and came across the 'Vicar of Ugley' blog. On there I found an article pointing out that do not agree with the ordination of women who are Bishops in the Church of England (including the 'flying bishops') are from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church. None are conservative evangelicals and he claims that no conservative evangelicals have been appointed Bishops for some time.
Do people know if this is true and if it is true why should it be so. Is the 'headship' argument against women's ordination seen as less acceptable than the 'catholic' arguments?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The Vicar of Ugley is a member of Continuing Anglicanism, isn't he? If he's looking to clergy with a similar outlook being ordained bishops, then I can see a few good reasons why the CofE might not choose to ordain a bishop who is aligned to GAFCON.
-------------------- Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tommy1: None are conservative evangelicals and he claims that no conservative evangelicals have been appointed Bishops for some time.
Paul Butler has, just a few weeks ago, gone from Southwell to Durham - not exactly an insignificant position!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan: quote: Originally posted by Tommy1: None are conservative evangelicals and he claims that no conservative evangelicals have been appointed Bishops for some time.
Paul Butler has, just a few weeks ago, gone from Southwell to Durham - not exactly an insignificant position!
What are his views on women's ordination?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...: The Vicar of Ugley is a member of Continuing Anglicanism, isn't he?
I don't know. quote: If he's looking to clergy with a similar outlook being ordained bishops, then I can see a few good reasons why the CofE might not choose to ordain a bishop who is aligned to GAFCON.
Looking at his blog he claims that the last evangelical opponent of women's ordination that was appointed a Bishop was Wallace Benn in 1997 (ten years before GAFCON) and he retired last year.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Only an area bishop, but Bishop David Hawkins was appointed in 2002, and he is a conservative evangelical. He has just, literally, last month, retired. So I'm not convinced by the Vicar of Ugley's arguments on that one.
The Bishop of Southwell had female curates in his Diocese with whom he worked, so I suspect he was not against women as priests, but again a he is a conservative evangelical.
I would also not be surprised if those appointed to Diocesan posts were prepared to work with women priests, as there are PEVs to provide alternative oversight.
-------------------- Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...: Only an area bishop, but Bishop David Hawkins was appointed in 2002, and he is a conservative evangelical. He has just, literally, last month, retired. So I'm not convinced by the Vicar of Ugley's arguments on that one.
What i think he means by conservative evangelical is an evangelical opponent of women's ordination
quote: I would also not be surprised if those appointed to Diocesan posts were prepared to work with women priests, as there are PEVs to provide alternative oversight.
He makes the point that every single one of the PEVs have been Anglo Catholic, none have been Evangelical.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The new Abp here has made a step in the right direction. He will still not license women as priests, but will license women priested elsewhere as deacons in Sydney. It is then a matter for the rector and parish council to determine the appropriate role for that woman in a parish; if they wish, she can preside at a Eucharist and carry out any other duties. The only restrictions are that she cannot become a rector herself, nor exercise any of the very few tasks reserved by an ordinance or canon for a priest.
Not what many of us would like, but a considerable advance from the previous blanket ban.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tommy1: Recently been doing some reading on the internet about the ordination of women and came across the 'Vicar of Ugley' blog. On there I found an article pointing out that do not agree with the ordination of women who are Bishops in the Church of England (including the 'flying bishops') are from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church. None are conservative evangelicals and he claims that no conservative evangelicals have been appointed Bishops for some time.
Do people know if this is true and if it is true why should it be so. Is the 'headship' argument against women's ordination seen as less acceptable than the 'catholic' arguments?
Its true. Things to bear in mind:
- at least some conservative evangelicals support the ordination of women, and many more tolerate it
- evangelicals have never been appointed to a proportionate share of bishops, not for two centuries, so nothing's changed.
- evangelicals tend not to bother much with mystical/ontological theories of ordination, and they don't usually have hang-ups about "validity" of orders. So even the ones who oppose ordaining women don't really have anything to lose by it if others insist on doing it. There is no "taint". (Chances are someone will object to me using that word but I'd point them to the literally thousands of postings on the subject on this site where we've discussed it to death and back)
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote: evangelicals have never been appointed to a proportionate share of bishops, not for two centuries, so nothing's changed. [/QB]
Why is that? Obviously liberals will want to other liberals but why are Anglo Catholics seen as more acceptable for episcopal office than Evangelicals?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Tommy1: quote: evangelicals have never been appointed to a proportionate share of bishops, not for two centuries, so nothing's changed.
Why is that? Obviously liberals will want to other liberals but why are Anglo Catholics seen as more acceptable for episcopal office than Evangelicals? [/QB]
Evangelicals are possibly less willing to become bishops, given their (generally) lower view of hierarchy. IME anyway.
-------------------- 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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I'm just reading abiography of Lord Salisbury, who was PM from 1884-5, 1886-92 and 1895-1902. Although himself a High Church man, possibly an Anglo-Catholic (though definitely not an Anglo-Papalist), he is described as going out of his way to appoint bishops (more than any other PM at the time) from a variety of styles and theologies. THe problem about evangelicals at the time was two-fold: very few were well-educated and believed to be capable of being bishops, while many of those he asked (not just the evangelicals) refused.
What Gladstone did I do not know -- he was also an Anglo-Catholic, and may (or may not) have favoured one stream of churchmanship in his appointments to the bench.
After Salisbury, none of the PMs were particularly high, and few were particularly fervent members of any part of the CofE. I'd guess their appointments might have been affected by political compatability, but were mostly an effort not to rock the boat -- none of them had any interest in stirring up things in the CofE, from any direction.
John
And, BTW, the issue then and at least until the end of WW II was not ususally about being a theological liberal or not... it was AC/MOTR/Low(evangelical) [ 10. December 2013, 02:31: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
My insomnia is not sufficient for me to do a census of CoE bishops for the past two centuries to determine if evangelicals were proportionately appointed, but I had been under the vague impression that Victoria liked things on the low side and in her 64 years on the throne was active in pushing for bishops of her taste. I do not think that many 20c PMs were that focussed on the topic and they seemed to go for some degree of balance. Of course, there are questions of what is meant by evangelical-- definitions shift-- and what the proportions might have been in the CoE at different times; and, moreover, much evangelical episcopal energy went overseas.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Harold Macmillan was both Anglo Catholic and as an active member of his local parish as he could be when PM. He often read the lessons.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut: My insomnia is not sufficient for me to do a census of CoE bishops for the past two centuries to determine if evangelicals were proportionately appointed, but I had been under the vague impression that Victoria liked things on the low side and in her 64 years on the throne was active in pushing for bishops of her taste. I do not think that many 20c PMs were that focussed on the topic and they seemed to go for some degree of balance. Of course, there are questions of what is meant by evangelical-- definitions shift-- and what the proportions might have been in the CoE at different times; and, moreover, much evangelical episcopal energy went overseas.
Victoria was on the low side and preferred the Church of Scotland, but that's not really equivalent to modern evangelicals.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Jade Constable: quote: Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut: My insomnia is not sufficient for me to do a census of CoE bishops for the past two centuries to determine if evangelicals were proportionately appointed, but I had been under the vague impression that Victoria liked things on the low side and in her 64 years on the throne was active in pushing for bishops of her taste. I do not think that many 20c PMs were that focussed on the topic and they seemed to go for some degree of balance. Of course, there are questions of what is meant by evangelical-- definitions shift-- and what the proportions might have been in the CoE at different times; and, moreover, much evangelical episcopal energy went overseas.
Victoria was on the low side and preferred the Church of Scotland, but that's not really equivalent to modern evangelicals.
This is exactly the point which I clumsily made. Evangelical is a word which meant something quite different in previous eras. I had an interesting lunch once illustrating to a Conservative friend what the term meant to William Wilberforce and Charles Simeon.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by John Holding: THe problem about evangelicals at the time was two-fold: very few were well-educated and believed to be capable of being bishops, while many of those he asked (not just the evangelicals) refused.
I think there may have been some snobbery involved in the first of those. And it maybe hasn't died out entirely - there were some shamefully pathetic whinges about George Carey from posh public-school fogies.
-------------------- Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Donald Allister was considered to be a conservative evangelical when he was chosen to be Bishop of Peterborough, and there was considerable worry in some quarters about objections he was said to have made in the past to women being licensed as Readers, let alone Presbyters. However I've heard very few complaints from either gay or female clergy since he arrived. Which may go to show that once a conservative evangelical becomes a bishop he ceases to be an 'authentic' conservative evangelical. This line of thought, of course, resembles John Broadhurst's supposed remark 'No real woman would want to be ordained.'
-------------------- At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Gee D: Harold Macmillan was both Anglo Catholic and as an active member of his local parish as he could be when PM. He often read the lessons.
I have always admired Macmillan. I am now inclined to love him.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut: My insomnia is not sufficient for me to do a census of CoE bishops for the past two centuries to determine if evangelicals were proportionately appointed, but I had been under the vague impression that Victoria liked things on the low side and in her 64 years on the throne was active in pushing for bishops of her taste.
My understanding of mid-nineteenth century church politics is based largely upon Barchester Towers. (SPOILERS) Archdeacon Grantly just misses his chance to succeed as bishop when the government falls and is replaced by one more sympathetic to low church clergymen. Hence the arrival of the distinctly evangelical Proudies. The appointment of the Oxford Movement Arabin as the new Dean at the end of the novel is I believe generally considered, including by Trollope, to be absolutely implausible within the period.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
Saw this on Andrew Brown's blog at the Guardian
quote: The core of the resistance is the conservative evangelical block, who object on grounds of straightforward patriarchy; they believe the Bible mandates that women submit to male authority.
It seems certain that one from this block will be promoted to bishop – at present there is not one of the Church's 112 bishops who shares their views.
link
The last Bishop who was a member of Reform or the Church Society was Wallace Benn who retired last year. If there is going to be another one does anyone have any idea who that might be?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by ken: quote: Originally posted by John Holding: THe problem about evangelicals at the time was two-fold: very few were well-educated and believed to be capable of being bishops, while many of those he asked (not just the evangelicals) refused.
I think there may have been some snobbery involved in the first of those. And it maybe hasn't died out entirely - there were some shamefully pathetic whinges about George Carey from posh public-school fogies.
Yes, and I suspect that the whinges wouldn't have been much less pronounced if he had been a working-class Anglo-Catholic, unless he'd been one of those who had acquired the mannerism of a toff a la Edward Norman. (As it happens, Dagenham George is a good deal better or at least more highly educated than the Etonian ++Justin, whose lack of a doctorate seems to have gone largely unremarked upon.)
There have at times been some rather high profile cases of Evangelical bishops who went disastrously wrong- Southwell seemed to have a few in quick succession in the late C20- and that has perhaps fed lingering mistrust among some people, however unfairly, in a way that, say, the flaws in the brilliance of Mervyn Stockwood didn't damage the reputation of liberal A-Cs.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The point about evangelicals being appointed bishops is that the majority of evangelical Anglicans dismissed the "headship" approach several years ago as not being consonant with scripture. Only Reform and Church Society (and of course Oak Hill and the Australians) tend to espouse that position. That means that only Wallace Benn is seen by them as representing their position (the rest of us who are evangelicals have repudiated "headship" and are therefore no longer "sound").
The major difficulty for the headship evangelicals is that they have very few clergy who are engaged more widely than their own pretty narrow band of parishes - which makes it quite hard to find candidates who would be able to serve as a bishop right across the Church of England.
There are attempts being made to find suitable candidates who might be able to be a con evo headship bishop of the kind they are looking for. They may have to invent a see for such a candidate - and I don't know how satisfying (or episcopal) it would be for them just to serve their own kind of parishes.
-------------------- Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Quite. And quite apart from the potential of headship 'theology' (note inverted commas) to disrupt the running of a church in which having women in positions of authority is (whether or not you think it should be) the mainstream position, there's no actual obligation to have a representative of every fringe minority- which is what the headship crowd are - on the bench of Bishops, is there? I mean, no-one feels any obligation to find a potential bishop who is a British Israelite or a believer in Joanna Southcott's Box, do they? [ 15. December 2013, 21:21: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Pete173, there is rather more to Australian Anglicanism than the Moore College stream. Indeed, I think it is only Sydney and North-West Australia which still do not ordain women as priests, and there is the slight movement in Sydney I referred to above. Even Ballarat, a bastion of Anglo-Catholicism, now permits it. One of the main reasons is that Forward-in-Faith has a very limited following here.
-------------------- Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Sorry, shorthand. I meant Sydney - they're the only ones we get here inflicting their theological stance here in London.
-------------------- Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
bad man
Apprentice
# 17449
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Albertus: ...there's no actual obligation to have a representative of every fringe minority- which is what the headship crowd are - on the bench of Bishops, is there? I mean, no-one feels any obligation to find a potential bishop who is a British Israelite or a believer in Joanna Southcott's Box, do they?
That's about to change, Albertus. The draft House of Bishops Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests says:
quote: The House also accepts that the presence in the College of Bishops of at least one bishop who takes the Conservative Evangelical view on headship is important for sustaining the necessary climate of trust.
If adopted, this Declaration is going to be entrenched as part of the Women Bishops legislation.
Just to be clear, "the Conservative Evangelical view on headship" means, I suppose, the view that Rod Thomas sets out here.
It's pretty extreme.
Posts: 49 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Mad. Mad, mad, mad. Completely batty. Upminster. Anyway, who needs the headship crowd? What do they contribute, apart from money which they then use as a lever for power? It's not as if, if they were to leave, they'd stop being Christians, is it? Why not be honest and say that, to adapt the old saying, it's better to have them outside the tent pissing in than inside the tent pissing in (which is where they are at present)? No good can come of this. I also look forward to the reservation of a place on the Bench for those who derive from the Bible a notion of white supremacy. [ 17. December 2013, 14:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
-------------------- 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
Given that the next Bishop of Lewes will, by all accounts, be in favour of OoW, where would be a suitable See? Most of the headship crowd are in East Sussex IME.
-------------------- 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
|
|