|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Getting Touchy about Taint at Traditionalist Bishop's Consecration
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
So right after the first female bishop is consecrated in the C of E, there will be a consecration of a traditionalist SSC bishop to take care of parishes that don't want any bishops with any taint (ie, having laid hands on a female priest or bishop at ordination, or having been ordained (only as bishop, or even as priest or deacon???) by a bishop who had laid hands on a woman priest/bishop). So taint was removed when there were flying bishops (some flying bishops had hands laid on them by bishops with taint), but now taint is alive and well again.
But this is a big deal, because just about everyone will gotten on the laying hands on the female bishop train at her consecration, so that means that at the consecration of the traditionalist bishop to follow, neither the Provincial (++Sentamu) or even the Diocesan bishop will be invited to lay hands on. Wil this fly? How can a traditionalist Catholic bishop NOT have the diocesan bishop lay hands on him at his ordination as a suffragan to that ordinary? Don't suffragan bishops have to swear obedience to their diocesan bishop at their consecration or is the C of E different?
Here's the link. Gosh he's a young and handsome bishop-to-be. Those young hardcore Catholics (in the RCC too) often are. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/consecration.of.traditionalist.bishop.set.to.highlight.church.of.england.divisions/4634 9.htm
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Wow. That gives 'Noli Me Tangere' (do not touch me) a whole new meaning.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
So can such an untainted Bishop marry? Can he marry a woman priest or is this unlikely given the politics? Will said Bishop refrain from laying hands on future female Bishops?
I can't tell if this is a political fudge or representing a new religious rule. Any ideas?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact. The idea of "taint" is that if a bishop (only bishops can ordain deacons, priests, and other bishops, and traditionally three bishops act as consecrators of a new bishop) has laid hands on a woman in ordination, he must believe in women's ordination, and therefore have a flawed understanding of holy orders - and therefore cannot have valid intent when he ordains other, male priests and bishops - so his ordinations are not valid. (Also, if he was himself ordained by a female bishop, then he is not a real bishop because a woman cannot be a bishop or even a priest.)
I support women's ordination to all orders and this line of thinking does not make any sense to me for someone willing to be a bishop (!) in a church that they believe to be so infected with heresy that it is destroying its lines of apostolic succession by ordaining invalid bishops. Rather than stay in the C of E to try to keep some valid line of apostolic succession alive in it, it would seem much more sensible to just join the RCC or Orthodoxy at that point, if that is what you believe.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
I've repeatedly tried and failed on this board to understand the logic here. I'm currently concluding there isn't any that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.
As I understand it, the logic for having lots of bishops present is that if (due to some administrative error) some aren't proper bishops, it doesn't matter. Therefore, I can see that (for any definition of 'proper bishop') someone might take the attitude that at least 3 proper bishops must be present at a consecration if the consecrated bishop is to be proper. What I don't understand is the idea that it would be problematic if non-proper bishops are also present.
I also don't understand how participating in a woman's ordination can affect the properness of a bishop. There seem to be 2 options here; Firstly the bishop who has ordained a woman is no longer considered a valid bishop. That seems inconceivable to a 'catholic' position as it implies that sacraments aren't permanent. (See threads on RC divorce). Alternatively, it could be that the bishop is considered a valid bishop but not one within the 'proper order' of 'the church'. This is essentially the roman catholic concept of licit-ness. The problems with this view is that from a Catholic (including RC) perspective, what really matters is validity and anglo-catholics tend to have a particular obsession with validity. Also, it's not quite clear what this 'church' whose 'proper order' isn't being followed actually is. It seems to be the Society of St Wilfred and Hilda. Which suggests that a schism is happening.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Yes, I think it's daft too. If sacraments are real but the ordination of women is not, then presumably all those present at the consecration of the first woman bishop are deluding themselves; but that doesn't mean they are no longer bishops, any more than running off with the organist would stop a priest from being a priest.
Does the Minster have to be decontaminated as well, or only the people taking part in the service?
I wish they'd just admit they have painted themselves into a corner...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
This page appears to claim that only 2 bishops will ordain him. If so, that's very strange. I understood the minimum was 3.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
This page appears to claim that only 2 bishops will ordain him. If so, that's very strange. I understood the minimum was 3.
I think that is a misunderstanding of the ABY's statement, which IIRC said only two will assist - i.e. the principal consecrator plus two.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
From a traditional catholic perspective the validity of a sacrament requires valid form, matter, and intent. Take baptism for example. Anyone can baptize (even someone who themselves has not yet been baptized). All that is needed to baptize validly in terms of matter is enough water to make a few drops run down someone's head. As for form you need to be saying "(Name), I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost." But you also need valid intent - and if you've been running around baptizing people who deny Christ's divinity, baptizing non-human animals, or baptizing with beer, etc., it is possible that your beliefs about baptism differ from the Church's enough to make your intent defective so that even when you do a later baptism with valid form and matter, your intent makes the baptism invalid. I apologize for making such an offensive comparison (again, I support women's ordination!) but this is the thought process that a traditional catholic would have and I imagine this bishop-to-be thinks this way. I can't speak for a conservative evangelical's view on the matter.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
It's not about validity, it's about Communion. Nobody is saying that the sacraments of those who purport to ordain women are invalid, but they have impaired the communion which exists within the church by their innovation. To submit to their laying on of hands would therefore be a profound statement of communion where it does not (unreservedly) exist.
A lot of ill-intentioned people are vomitting up all the old taint notions - a theology I've only ever heard from the mouths of liberals - and it needs to stop.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and sounds like a duck, chances are it's a duck. Or, in this case, a theology of taint. Or "cooties" as it has been less charitably referred.
If communion is so drastically and permanently impaired, how can "traditionalists" even bear to swear canonical obedience to their Diocesan or Metropolitan? Surely if it's as bad as they claim they should be racing to the ordinariate or at least acknowledging their schism from the rest of the CofE and ceasing to draw a stipend from it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If this is how "Christian love" functions, it must be time to get rid of the whole concept of Christianity.
And I do believe that a certain person involved in the formation of the church had quite a lot to say about mindless rule-nit-pickers. If the various people involved in promulgating the concept of Christianity don't remember those strictures, then the less drastic solution would be to dump upper management and introduce a new set.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And double-posting to reference the Urban Dictionary's definition of "taint"
NSFW, so all I will write here is that the word is a less-polite version of "perineum"
Thank you for getting me to look this up, but I now have the question: What does a perineum have to do with the ordination of bishops?
I had understood that they "Laid their hands on" the person's head. Is the new rite to involve the tipping-upside-down of the person (ruins all those fine clothes, doesn't it)?
And, in these enlightened times*, should ANY males be laying their hands of persons of the female persuasion?
* not, apparently, enlightened times in the C of E
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This insanity won't last 10,000 years.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
You are right, we just need to be a bit more patient.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
And our bishops wonder why it is that general respect for the church is diminishing...
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
There are two points I want to make:
a) I don't think that this is what General Synod thought that they were getting when they voted it all through (including the five guiding principles). If an archbishop had said that one of the consequences of the vote would be this kind of nonsense, I suspect that many people would have voted the other way. Once again, there has been a degree of deception from the high ups in the C of E. (Let's not think for a moment that this is a decision made solely by Sentamu. I find it inconceivable that this wasn't agreed by both archbishops.)
b) Let there be no doubt that, as far as Sentamu is concerned, this is about setting a precedent. In other words; people, get used to it, because this is how things are gonna be now, every time a "traditionalist" is made a bishop. In his letter to the northern bishops, Sentamu says this:
quote:
" ...it is hoped that these arrangements will begin to shape good practice and custom."
Let's be blunt about this. It is unheard of and beyond comprehension that someone should be ordained bishop without the laying on of hands of either his metropolitan OR his diocesan bishop. It is an appalling decision and one that quite rightly is getting the mockery it deserves. Sadly, I suspect that Sentamu will get his way and that this will come to be regarded as the "test case" which sets a precedent that will not be changed.
Welcome to the institutionally schismatic C of E.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Well Oscar tells it like it is.
I am intrigued about where he saw the letter though. The person who showed it to me was very reluctant to publicise it in full and in public.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Well Oscar tells it like it is.
I am intrigued about where he saw the letter though. The person who showed it to me was very reluctant to publicise it in full and in public.
It was included as part of the Archbishop of York's
Statement
(Although I am slightly intrigued by Sentamu's comment: "This is a version of the notes giving details of the Consecration which I sent to the northern Bishops in December". Which implies that he has redacted the notes. The cynical part of me wonders what exactly was removed. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) )
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?
stonespring: quote:
As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact.
Er, yeah, I think I got that. I just couldn't resist playing. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.
Or why these flying bishops want to be ordained in a less-than-acceptable way.
Or why any of these hold-outs want to be in this church at all.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
A couple of questions that someone might like to answer:
1. When was the decision made to adopt this practice?
It was clearly made BEFORE Sentamu sent out his letter to the northern bishops in December. But when exactly? In other words, how long has this been in the pipeline?
2. Who were involved in making this decision?
I am assuming it is a given that both archbishops were involved. Who else was consulted? Clearly not WATCH, it would seem. Were there discussions with FiF? If so, is it not strange that one side of the "debate" are consulted about something in confidence?
And if FiF were NOT involved, why on earth was this decision made in the first place? After all, we know that there was no problem experienced when Sentamu ordained Glyn Webster and Martin Warner - as he himself is eager to point out. So what makes things so different now?
3. Which nincompoop thought that they could do this WITHOUT a row ensuing?
The fact that the original letter to the bishops seems to have been regarded as rather confidential suggests that they knew they were dealing with dynamite. Rather than all this cloak and dagger stuff, would it not have been more honest to say upfront what was going to happen?
It is protested strongly that this is NOT a "theology of taint". But - if there WERE a "theology of taint", isn't this exactly how it would look?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.
But it isn't throwing away the rule book. To keep with your analogy, it is objecting when you discover that the rule book has "hidden rules" that have been drawn up in secret.
Is it "throwing away the rule book" to insist that ALL bishops in the C of E should be ordained in the same manner?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
"Girls' germs, no returns!"
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
A couple of questions that someone might like to answer:
1. When was the decision made to adopt this practice?
It was clearly made BEFORE Sentamu sent out his letter to the northern bishops in December. But when exactly? In other words, how long has this been in the pipeline?
2. Who were involved in making this decision?
I am assuming it is a given that both archbishops were involved. Who else was consulted? Clearly not WATCH, it would seem. Were there discussions with FiF? If so, is it not strange that one side of the "debate" are consulted about something in confidence?
And if FiF were NOT involved, why on earth was this decision made in the first place? After all, we know that there was no problem experienced when Sentamu ordained Glyn Webster and Martin Warner - as he himself is eager to point out. So what makes things so different now?
3. Which nincompoop thought that they could do this WITHOUT a row ensuing?
The fact that the original letter to the bishops seems to have been regarded as rather confidential suggests that they knew they were dealing with dynamite. Rather than all this cloak and dagger stuff, would it not have been more honest to say upfront what was going to happen?
It is protested strongly that this is NOT a "theology of taint". But - if there WERE a "theology of taint", isn't this exactly how it would look?
On Q2, specifically "why now?" - I get the impression it's precisely to start a new way of doing things so that *when* the metropolitisn is a woman it will already be established that the metropolitan doesn't do OOW dissenting consecrations and the validity issue can be avoided altogether. As has been commented over at Thinking Anglicans, this is messy church writ large....
I think *that's* what's going on here, and taint is, as ever, an irrelevant sideshow. Someone is playing the long game and attempting to set a convention that removes future ABCs and ABYs from the picture before they are women. It actually seems to be an attempt to avoid a bigger and more explosive row even than this down the line.
(note I have said attempt....)
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?
Ah. this could be like when activists with HIV visited the Clinton White House. People were still freaked out about casual contact, and the Secret Service showed up in blue gloves and other gear, IIRC.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Hazmat suit, burn zone....
--------------------
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
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Wondering why the anti-OoW people want to continue as part of a church that visibly throws away the rulebook when said A-OoWs make any demands.
Or why these flying bishops want to be ordained in a less-than-acceptable way.
Or why any of these hold-outs want to be in this church at all.
But +Burnley isn't a flying bishop. The PEV for the province of York is +Beverley; Burnley is the suffragan in the diocese of +Blackburn.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?
stonespring: quote:
As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact.
Er, yeah, I think I got that. I just couldn't resist playing.
Perhaps the person being ordained could wear a biretta, then? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
To a non-Anglican, whose idea of ordination is very much one of "recognising gifts" and "setting people aside for ministry" rather than "addng people to the apostolic succession" or "effecting ontological change", this whole row seems, frankly, to be (a) preposterous; (b) superstitious; and (c - to quote our local Rector's comment to me this morning) an utter waste of Gospel time. (And said Rector is not an Evangelical, by any means).
[ 25. January 2015, 14:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There's a piece on the BBC Sunday programme at about 37.45 minutes on this issue.
Ordination of woman bishop and "theology of taint"
Bishops taking part in laying hands on Libby Lane are asked to exercise "gracious restraint" and not lay hands during the ordination of the Bishop of Burnley.
Nothing to do with taint, nothing to see here, pass along please....
[ 25. January 2015, 15:02: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
To submit to their laying on of hands would therefore be a profound statement of communion where it does not (unreservedly) exist.
To declare oneself out of communion with all but 3 bishops makes a bizarre contrast with the decision to be consecrated. Doesn't consecration imply communion with most of the church?
This can't be a sustainable position in the long run, it would be better to get on with moving to a different church or starting a new church.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I think that the lady who is to become bishop should make a serious fuss about the lack of proper ordination ritual. It is clearly an attempt to keep women from participating fully in the church, if the naysayers can get away with "she wasn't properly ordained, was she".
The corresponding bishop appointed to look after those poor dears, who need doses of sal volatile to keep them from fainting because of the existence of women, should also complain about the lack of proper process, because his tenure of office is also tainted.
Not bad for the good ol' C of E, to get BOTH sides of an argument to come out badly, while shooting the hierarchy in various feet at the same time. Glad I'm in a schismatic separate entity which didn't allow this foolishness.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Can he shake hands with a woman bishop/priest if he wears gloves? And then throws them away? And then uses hand sanitizer?
stonespring: quote:
As a clarification: the "laying on of hands" refers to putting your hands on the head of someone being ordained as part of the ordination rite and not to any other physical contact.
Er, yeah, I think I got that. I just couldn't resist playing.
Perhaps the person being ordained could wear a biretta, then?
To a non-Anglican, whose idea of ordination is very much one of "recognising gifts" and "setting people aside for ministry" rather than "addng people to the apostolic succession" or "effecting ontological change", this whole row seems, frankly, to be (a) preposterous; (b) superstitious; and (c - to quote our local Rector's comment to me this morning) an utter waste of Gospel time. (And said Rector is not an Evangelical, by any means).
Is it time then, TF, to ask the schismatic denomination to which we both belong to break our ecumenical ties with the CofE? Given that our view on women's ordination is clearly opposed to that of Philip North's, who is becoming an ordained leader of that denomination?
Our declaration of principle, based on freedom of conscience, suggests that this is an acceptable accommodation.
Thanks for nothing CofE, once again, you're doing the rest of us no favours.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
OH, I'm just one of those Canadians who've been in a church that has ordained women for a generation or so. I don't remember hearing any fuss when we had the first (or any other) woman as a bishop.
Makes us improper Anglicans, doesn't it? Our arguments are all about really important God stuff such as property (which usually die down quite quickly, since they are almost irrelevant)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
It's all very well being driven to proclaim during the service that it isn't in the Bible, but where in the Bible does it say one word about anyone being a bishop?
And the woman who rang up LBC to claim Biblical forbidding of women teaching men was assuming that her explanation was not being heard by any men, or she was herself in breach of what she was teaching.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It's all very well being driven to proclaim during the service that it isn't in the Bible.
Did he see himself as "making a stand"? And did he really think he would achieve anything, except IMO looking a bit silly? After all, it's not as if we don't know that some folk disagree!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ophicleide16
Shipmate
# 16344
|
Posted
He is the Rev. Paul Williamson and he has a history of protesting. He's previously tried to file court cases over the ordination of women, the legality of Charles & Camilla's marriage and various others. In other words, he's a self styled vigilante with a history of making a nuisance of himself.
Posts: 79 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
As Gore Vidal said, "For many folks over 40, litigation replaces sex."
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
He treasures his place in the small select list of vexatious litigants.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Is it time then, TF, to ask the schismatic denomination to which we both belong to break our ecumenical ties with the CofE? Given that our view on women's ordination is clearly opposed to that of Philip North's, who is becoming an ordained leader of that denomination?
Our declaration of principle, based on freedom of conscience, suggests that this is an acceptable accommodation.
Thanks for nothing CofE, once again, you're doing the rest of us no favours.
I don't mean to pick on Baptists here (I am an ex-Baptist, I ceased to be...), but let's not pretend that the Baptist church in the UK, even BUGB affiliated churches, have an entirely positive attitude to women ministers. There are a huge number of UK Baptist churches who would simply refuse to call a female minister. Whilst the views of Philip North might be in contradiction with your own personal views, many Baptist churches would hold the same view (women can not be ministers) albeit for extremely different reasons.
This is not simply theory, two female Baptist ministers I know (one a relation by marriage, the other a very close friend) had an absolutely dreadful time in the settlement process, with churches to whom their name was sent either rejecting them straightaway; or meeting them, liking them but saying 'actually, there are one or two of our members here who don't accept the ministry of women, so we think it's best not to take this any further.'.
Now, sure, BUGB could say that to be affiliated a church must be prepared to call either a man or a woman as their minister, but that kind of top down edict isn't very Baptist.
I don't actually see a fundamental difference in the CofE and Baptist positions: part of each of our churches recognises the ministry/priesthood of women and part of each doesn't!
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thank you. I had been wondering how to answer but was increasingly thinking of a response along the line of yours!
As it happens, this subject has been written about extensively in the most recent issue of the "Baptist Quarterly" (the journal of the Baptist Historical Society) with a lengthy article by the current Head of Ministry. The general thrust is very much in favour of female ministers, and how to give them true equality within the Denomination.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Two female Baptist ministers I know (one a relation by marriage, the other a very close friend) had an absolutely dreadful time in the settlement process, with churches to whom their name was sent either rejecting them straightaway; or meeting them, liking them but saying 'actually, there are one or two of our members here who don't accept the ministry of women, so we think it's best not to take this any further.'.
Just a small point, but wouldn't it be less dreadful for all concerned if this sort of essential information was kept on an updated file for candidates to refer to, rather than allowing candidates to apply for posts that they're never going to get? The CofE tries to avoid this sort of embarrassment, ISTM.
Regarding ExclamationMark's post about ecumelicalism, don't some Baptist churches have ecumenical relationships with the RCC, and with some evangelical denominations who don't accept women ministers? If this is the case then it's hardly fair to break off relations with the CofE just because some Anglicans don't accept women vicars or bishops.
[ 27. January 2015, 12:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
The CofE keeps a record of churches which have voted not to have a female incumbent (Resolutions parishes); what it doesn't do is keep a record of parishes which would really rather not have one but don't want to make it official. These are the parishes which are likely to shortlist one woman, because the Archdeacon insists on it, but would never appoint her.
[ 27. January 2015, 13:19: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
The CofE keeps a record of churches which have voted not to have a female incumbent (Resolutions parishes); what it doesn't do is keep a record of parishes which would really rather not have one but don't want to make it official. These are the parishes which are likely to shortlist one woman, because the Archdeacon insists on it, but would never appoint her.
Such hidden biases can be deeply frustrating - especially when archdeacons and bishops refuse to acknowledge that they are there.
In one deanery in my previous diocese, it has been over 10 years since a woman was appointed as incumbent in any of the parishes (all of which have had at least one vacancy in that time). None of them ever passed any of the Resolutions - they just found reasons to not appoint a woman. Even when the shortlist consisted of three women and a man, the parish appointed the man.
When I (gently) pointed this out to the archdeacon and asked if he didn't think it rather strange, I got brushed off.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
As Gore Vidal said, "For many folks over 40, litigation replaces sex."
I'm 55 and am happy to say, then, that the Mrs. and I sued the bejabbers out of each other last night.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Regarding ExclamationMark's post about ecumelicalism, don't some Baptist churches have ecumenical relationships with the RCC, and with some evangelical denominations who don't accept women ministers? If this is the case then it's hardly fair to break off relations with the CofE just because some Anglicans don't accept women vicars or bishops.
I had read exclamation mark as being rather derisory about the whole sorry mess and the way it was handled rather than a statement in favour of women as bishops.
Personally I will remain an Anglican but I have every sympathy for that view.
This is a historic moment when our church catches up, and we get immediately plunged into the most ludicrous statement made over consecrating a bishop which makes no consistent logical sense handled in the weakest possible way by the Archbishop and the leadership of the church. Snatched from the jaws of victory.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a historic moment when our church catches up, and we get immediately plunged into the most ludicrous statement made over consecrating a bishop which makes no consistent logical sense handled in the weakest possible way by the Archbishop and the leadership of the church. Snatched from the jaws of victory.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The only way to respond is to laugh, I reckon. Or play 'tag'?
The more I read and hear about it, the funnier it gets. And I haven't touched a drop, honest!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
