|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: New Bishop of Sheffield anti women's ordination
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
I'm intrigued by the concept of eventual union with "the rest of the church" and continued acceptance of branch theory, at least as set out above.
This means they are focusing only on the CofE, and writing off the whole of the rest of the ANglican Communion (such as it is). They are totally inward looking -- since they clearly don't think that ties with other Anglican churches "count", at least (and I would bet only) when it comes to the ordination of women.
Pardon me if I find the whole thing ever so slightly ... distasteful. A little tainted, if you will.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
1. Yes, to preserve that integrity there needs to be a line of male bishops (ordained by male bishops etc.) but that doesn't limit who can take any particular post.
2. Can I suggest it might be worth giving him chance first? To those he has served so far as a bishop he has proven a good and faithful pastor.
3. ....based on his experience working with the RCC with unity as the goal, that some arrangement could be made in the long term.
4. It is over whether there is something ontological and sacramental about priesthood. For those of us who believe there is, what the person does is only significant in so far as it reveals who they are.
5. a bishop lies his or her hands upon my head and invokes the Holy Spirit upon me. It is only something I can only become by the gift of Christ acting in his Church.
6. God is faithful, and will continue to act through the sacraments of the Church.
1. Well if your own Bishop won't ordain you just because you're a woman, there's something wrong. Fudge.
2. How long has je been a Bishop[ with no discernible change? Can you really be a good and faithful pastor to all if you are denying them what is (arguably) theirs to embrace? Good and faithful to pastor to whom?
3. Some "arrangement? .." Since when did the CofE give assent to the RCC calling all the shots? I think at the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation we can really do better than that!
4. All life is sacramental (Psalm 24:1). What we all do reveals what we are. If this truly is at the heart of the issue, then the CofE is operating within the (non scriptural) framework of Platonic Dualism. If a priest has a sacramental calling then that sets him apart from the laity who do not have it "call no man Father ...).
5. Only God calls and equips. The Bishop's role is merely one which affirms, on behalf of the church, what has already happened and has been recognised by the church.
6. Of course God works through the sacraments but he also works through Grace which includes you and I. The church (institution) is not the sole means of grace - the church (koinonia) is the expression of grace.
None of that explains why Bishop North feels he can adopt this position, be a good pastor (and yes it was great that he spoke up for those on the margins) and remain in the CofE.
If he really cares for the marginalised then consider what his attitude towards women's ordination says about that.
By the way what does he believe on SSM?
[ 04. February 2017, 07:03: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
1. Yes, to preserve that integrity there needs to be a line of male bishops (ordained by male bishops etc.) but that doesn't limit who can take any particular post.
2. Can I suggest it might be worth giving him chance first? To those he has served so far as a bishop he has proven a good and faithful pastor.
3. ....based on his experience working with the RCC with unity as the goal, that some arrangement could be made in the long term.
4. It is over whether there is something ontological and sacramental about priesthood. For those of us who believe there is, what the person does is only significant in so far as it reveals who they are.
5. a bishop lies his or her hands upon my head and invokes the Holy Spirit upon me. It is only something I can only become by the gift of Christ acting in his Church.
6. God is faithful, and will continue to act through the sacraments of the Church.
1. Well if your own Bishop won't ordain you just because you're a woman, there's something wrong. Fudge.
2. How long has je been a Bishop[ with no discernible change? Can you really be a good and faithful pastor to all if you are denying them what is (arguably) theirs to embrace? Good and faithful to pastor to whom?
3. Some "arrangement? .." Since when did the CofE give assent to the RCC calling all the shots? I think at the 500th Anniversary of the Reformation we can really do better than that!
4. All life is sacramental (Psalm 24:1). What we all do reveals what we are. If this truly is at the heart of the issue, then the CofE is operating within the (non scriptural) framework of Platonic Dualism. If a priest has a sacramental calling then that sets him apart from the laity who do not have it "call no man Father ...).
5. Only God calls and equips. The Bishop's role is merely one which affirms, on behalf of the church, what has already happened and has been recognised by the church.
6. Of course God works through the sacraments but he also works through Grace which includes you and I. The church (institution) is not the sole means of grace - the church (koinonia) is the expression of grace.
None of that explains why Bishop North feels he can adopt this position, be a good pastor (and yes it was great that he spoke up for those on the margins) and remain in the CofE.
If he really cares for the marginalised then consider what his attitude towards women's ordination says about that.
By the way what does he believe on SSM?
1. Yes, there's an element of compromise whilst the Church discerns the way forward. As I said above, there always has been, and there always will be, at least until we gaze upon the beatific vision in its fullness.
Will anyone not be ordained because of +Philip's views on the ordination of women? No, his suffragan will ordain too (and in Chichester, where the diocesan doesn't ordain women, some of the male ordinands are ordained by the suffragans too.) Why is it better that a diocesan bishop will ordain women but therefore cannot ordain 'traditionalists' than the other way around?
2. A couple of years, I think. A good pastor to (amongst others) his female clergy, by all reports. And to his female colleagues when he has a parish priest. And he and Bishop Libby Lane (of Stockport) get on and work well together (again, by all accounts)
3. An arrangement - yes, if we are going to recognise each other's orders there would need to be a recognition on both sides. David Moxon's suggestion was, if I understood correctly, something akin to the parallel codes of Canon Law the RCC already has for Western and Eastern Rite churches. Why is the idea of working together to agree and arrange a way forward to be viewed with such suspicion?
4. We all have a sacramental calling in baptism. But the Church has always sacramentally set apart priests and deacons to serve the people of God. But this and (5) and (6) are illustrative of the point I was making - the fundamental divide is not the question of who can be ordained, but the theology of what is ordination, and by extension the other sacraments, and therefore the Church. As far I can see reconciliation between catholic Anglicans over ordaining women or not will be easier than reconciliation with those that fundamental differ on the sacraments.
How does he feel he can remain in the Church of England? Because we have committed as a church to respecting the diversity of opinions on the issue and encouraging mutual flourishing with the goal of continuing to discern God's will together. That involves a willingness to learn from each other that often seems to be more lacking amongst those with whom +Philip would disagree on this point than many 'traditionalists'.
Whilst liberals in the CofE would tend to see this as about equality, to catholics it really tends not to be, at least not in the same sense in which it is to the secular world. We will do far better in communicating the gospel if we attempt a bit more working together and a lot less bickering about sex and gender.
And to +Philip's view on SSM? I've no idea.
*
With regard to the Anglican Communion, all the official dialogues with the RCC are carried out at a Communion-wide level. This isn't a forgetting of the Communion, but (on the whole) there aren't the same issues across the Communion to be resolved - at least to some degree we are already in communion with one another.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Far be it for me, a Baptist, to venture onto Anglican territory, but ...
I do find this "unbroken line" of ordination idea a bit strange, for several reasons. One is the semi-magical (to my eyes) view that the ordination will not "take" unless it's done by the correct episcopally-pure person. More to the point, I've always felt that ordination (whatever exactly it may be!) is performed by the Bishop as the representative of the wider Church, not by him/herself - i.e. it is really the Church itself which ordains. The other thing - and I know I'm venturing even further into the Land of Defunct Equines - is that, to me, "apostolic succession" is not a succession of individuals but a succession of doctrine and tradition.
By the way, we've all got upset by the new Bishop's view on female priests - what about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches who not only say that "churches belonging to the FIEC should not have a woman pastor-teacher or women elders" but also "God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception [and] may not be changed or reassigned".
(Stands back and waits for possible explosion).
[ 04. February 2017, 08:59: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Baptist Trainfan wrote: quote:
I do find this "unbroken line" of ordination idea a bit strange, for several reasons. One is the semi-magical (to my eyes) view that the ordination will not "take" unless it's done by the correct episcopally-pure person.
I don't think those of us in churches who follow this way of doing things regard it as (semi)-magical. Perhaps that's because we see it as indicative of what is happening and not operative, except insofar as God regularly calls us to do things. We are participants in the divine mysteries, not their source and origin. We want to do what the church has always done. Completely agreed, however, that the converse risk - which is unhitching the act from the teaching etc. is wrong and can cause things to look that way.
quote:
what about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches who not only say that "churches belonging to the FIEC should not have a woman pastor-teacher or women elders" but also "God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception [and] may not be changed or reassigned".
Somehow I feel that whatever the good bishop thinks, it isn't that!
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
By the way, we've all got upset by the new Bishop's view on female priests - what about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches who not only say that "churches belonging to the FIEC should not have a woman pastor-teacher or women elders" but also "God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception [and] may not be changed or reassigned".
(Stands back and waits for possible explosion).
No explosion needed - only similar if a church in the FIEC then decides to have women leaders, in which case it would appear to be in a similar theological oxymoron.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The church (institution) is not the sole means of grace - the church (koinonia) is the expression of grace.
None of that explains why Bishop North feels he can adopt this position, be a good pastor (and yes it was great that he spoke up for those on the margins) and remain in the CofE.
If he really cares for the marginalised then consider what his attitude towards women's ordination says about that.
By the way what does he believe on SSM?
And if he approves of SSM you could similarly ask why he 'feels he can adopt this position [...] and remain in the CofE'!
It all proves that the CofE is able to contain people who believe different things. For good or ill, of course.
[ 04. February 2017, 12:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Baptist Trainfan wrote: quote:
I do find this "unbroken line" of ordination idea a bit strange, for several reasons. One is the semi-magical (to my eyes) view that the ordination will not "take" unless it's done by the correct episcopally-pure person.
I don't think those of us in churches who follow this way of doing things regard it as (semi)-magical.
Why if it is indicative do you demand it of traditions that do not see anything indicative in it? Our indicators of keeping the tradition are different, not non-existent or are you prepared to submit your clergy to re-ordination with those fulfilled as well?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
"God created us male and female, and calls us to live according to our gender identity which is inseparable from our biological sex determined at conception [and] may not be changed or reassigned".
Clearly this is aimed at transgender people. The question of what, precisely, transgenderism actually is is an open one.
Transgender people report that they feel like they "really" belong to the opposite gender from their body, and that this is a different thing from being a man who likes girly things, or a woman with traditionally masculine preferences.
That tells us something about what it feels like to be a trans person, but not much about what causes that. We don't understand enough of the biology to make definitive statements about what transgenderism actually is.
On the other hand, we do understand enough about the various intersex conditions to talk in an accurate, factual way about what they are, and the actual biological facts do not match up with the rather simplistic view expounded by the FIEC and quoted here. Most people have either male or female biology, but that just isn't true for everyone.
So the FIEC statement is factually false, whatever you think about transgenderism.
And what about transgender? We don't know the biological causes. We do know that one category of intersex conditions is androgen insensitivity, where you have a genetically XY person who is insensitive to androgens, and so develops a female body, with female genitalia, breasts, and so on. Perhaps there is a similar mechanism that affects only the brain, but not the body, so the body develops as male, but the brain develops with more typically female traits, and what you get is a trans woman.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
]And if he approves of SSM you could similarly ask why he 'feels he can adopt this position [...] and remain in the CofE'!
It would be a major question ... relying on Rome's buy in for one thing but not another.
It seems, according to the Church Times that he is as traditional as the Bishops Report might allow. There would, of course, be those in the CofE and beyond, who would see the Bishop's Report as simply another fudge with its language of "accommodation" not decision.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst liberals in the CofE would tend to see this as about equality, to catholics it really tends not to be, at least not in the same sense in which it is to the secular world. We will do far better in communicating the gospel if we attempt a bit more working together and a lot less bickering about sex and gender.
I appreciate your concern for communicating the gospel (honest, I do, there's no way to write that without it sounding sarky) and your thoughts over the ontological issues about ordination. And yes, even as a liberal, I'd want to work with people of different views to communicate the gospel.
The difference of views would be a whole lot easier for me to take if (for me) it wasn't couched in a hundreds / thousands of years history of women being assumed as not able to do things - decisions ofc largely made by a group of men.
So:
Should girls be educated? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be able to take degree courses? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed to work, or to continue to work after marriage? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be paid equally for the work they do? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed to be MPs / council leaders? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed access to their children after divorce? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women preach in church? At best unproven, at worst no.
There are thousands more, these are just those that sprang to mind whilst I've been in bed with the lurgy all weeekend. Those taking that "at best unproven, at worst no" line with all of the above were generally not doing so out of spite, but borne from a considered view that women were quite simply not up to the job. A view often based on deeply held moral or religious understanding.
At this stage we could divert into a lengthy tangent about the role of women in early Christianity, that it was a woman to whom Christ was first revealed after the resurrection etc etc, but I see to my delight that this is well covered in the priestly genitalia thread.
To some of us (granted, not to all by a long stretch!) this isn't "bickering about sex & gender" it's something with a deeply unpleasant historical echo.
Hope this makes sense. The lurgy is still with me, to some degree...
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst liberals in the CofE would tend to see this as about equality, to catholics it really tends not to be, at least not in the same sense in which it is to the secular world. We will do far better in communicating the gospel if we attempt a bit more working together and a lot less bickering about sex and gender.
I appreciate your concern for communicating the gospel (honest, I do, there's no way to write that without it sounding sarky) and your thoughts over the ontological issues about ordination. And yes, even as a liberal, I'd want to work with people of different views to communicate the gospel.
The difference of views would be a whole lot easier for me to take if (for me) it wasn't couched in a hundreds / thousands of years history of women being assumed as not able to do things - decisions ofc largely made by a group of men.
So:
Should girls be educated? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be able to take degree courses? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed to work, or to continue to work after marriage? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be paid equally for the work they do? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed to be MPs / council leaders? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women be allowed access to their children after divorce? At best unproven, at worst no.
Should women preach in church? At best unproven, at worst no.
There are thousands more, these are just those that sprang to mind whilst I've been in bed with the lurgy all weeekend. Those taking that "at best unproven, at worst no" line with all of the above were generally not doing so out of spite, but borne from a considered view that women were quite simply not up to the job. A view often based on deeply held moral or religious understanding.
At this stage we could divert into a lengthy tangent about the role of women in early Christianity, that it was a woman to whom Christ was first revealed after the resurrection etc etc, but I see to my delight that this is well covered in the priestly genitalia thread.
To some of us (granted, not to all by a long stretch!) this isn't "bickering about sex & gender" it's something with a deeply unpleasant historical echo.
Hope this makes sense. The lurgy is still with me, to some degree...
You make sense completely.
There is only so far I can go, as someone fully in favour of the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood (and episcopate): the arguments against are ones I have found unsatisfactory.
However, your comments lead me to reflect how we are then arriving at the core issue that never gets addressed in any of the Church of England's fierce debates on this issue or on SSM. What is our theology of gender?
There is of course the simple (not simplistic, mind) view that God created humans male and female, where each individual is simply one or the other, determined by their genes and thus by their reproductive organs. However, all of us, I think, would argue that there is far more to it than that - for starters we need to deal with XXY karyotype individuals, with those who are intersex, etc.
To debate who is valid matter (to use the scholastic term) for ordination, we need a sound theological anthropology that accounts for gender. Similarly to discuss who can marry one another, we must define the characteristics that we are differentiating.
Too often the 'traditionalist' view adopts essentially the simple view I outlined, and ignores its limitations. Too often the 'liberal' view unreflectively adopts the current social mores without rooting it in a theology and it can easily be critiqued as only being concerned with worldly equality.
If we adopt a more traditional view, that there is a clear and definite divide, then it is reasonable to conclude that the divide may be a feature in who God calls to what ministries in the Church. Without it, we have no coherent theological account of why God created us male and female and inter- and trans-. If we cannot offer an alternative view, then we are not offering much more than an argument on grounds of personality as to why women can be ordained. For those with reasoned theological objections, that will not be enough.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
If we adopt a more traditional view, that there is a clear and definite divide, then it is reasonable to conclude that the divide may be a feature in who God calls to what ministries in the Church.
That is, if we set aside the empirical evidence that God is calling women to minister in the Church.
The philosopher Raimond Gaita writes somewhere that it is a weakness of liberal philosophy generally that it focuses largely on rights and equality and other formal considerations and therefore leaves out the reason that the rights and equality matter to the people whose rights it's defending. I think that's a weakness of liberal theologians too: when one comes down to it the argument for ordaining women is simply that God is calling women to be ordained.
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't think one even needs to go that far, though. The church as a whole has decided that women can be ordained as priests. A diocene bishop, who is pretty obviously a high representative of the church in relation to ordaination if nothing else, is supposed to be doing what the church tells him.
One thing being a "flying bishop" to minister to a minority that the majority has gracefully accepted need to be considered despite holding an opposite view. Quite another thing when you are in a position that is supposed to be supporting the church, not hindering it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
Dafyd - I think I'd be hard pushed to claim there is empirical evidence that anyone is called to ordination. That's not to say there is no evidence, but it is rare for it to be empirical.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think one even needs to go that far, though. The church as a whole has decided that women can be ordained as priests. A diocene bishop, who is pretty obviously a high representative of the church in relation to ordaination if nothing else, is supposed to be doing what the church tells him.
One thing being a "flying bishop" to minister to a minority that the majority has gracefully accepted need to be considered despite holding an opposite view. Quite another thing when you are in a position that is supposed to be supporting the church, not hindering it.
But the Church of England has also decided that the view that women cannot be ordained is an acceptable and mainstream view. To hold the view that women cannot be ordained is to hold a view that is supported by the Church.
[ 06. February 2017, 15:34: Message edited by: TomM ]
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Dafyd - I think I'd be hard pushed to claim there is empirical evidence that anyone is called to ordination. That's not to say there is no evidence, but it is rare for it to be empirical.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think one even needs to go that far, though. The church as a whole has decided that women can be ordained as priests. A diocene bishop, who is pretty obviously a high representative of the church in relation to ordaination if nothing else, is supposed to be doing what the church tells him.
One thing being a "flying bishop" to minister to a minority that the majority has gracefully accepted need to be considered despite holding an opposite view. Quite another thing when you are in a position that is supposed to be supporting the church, not hindering it.
But the Church of England has also decided that the view that women cannot be ordained is an acceptable and mainstream view. To hold the view that women cannot be ordained is to hold a view that is supported by the Church.
Then the church is acting as if it is suffering from some kind of spiritual schizophrenia. If ordination is as important as you (and the CofE) claim - and personally I believe we're all ordained - then you have to come down on one side or another. Hedging your bets just won't do and, if as Bishop you reject the Synod view, you stand in opposition to a majority of your own church. Not a comfortable nor a happy place to be IMHO
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Then the church is acting as if it is suffering from some kind of spiritual schizophrenia. If ordination is as important as you (and the CofE) claim - and personally I believe we're all ordained - then you have to come down on one side or another. Hedging your bets just won't do and, if as Bishop you reject the Synod view, you stand in opposition to a majority of your own church. Not a comfortable nor a happy place to be IMHO
But, and I repeat, the Synod view is that expressed in the Five Guiding Principles, the 4th of which reads:
quote:
Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests
continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to
flourish within its life and structures;
That the Church of England has a diversity of opinions on essential doctrinal matters is nothing new either. Taking as an example the Eucharist - there are members of the Church of England who are purely memorialist, there are members of the Church of England who are fully signed up to transubstantiation. And everything in between.
Or baptism. Again everything from a marker of a conversion and grace already received, with a preference to adults only, to the act of baptism being the conveying of that grace, and the water to be applied as freely and widely as possible.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Then the church is acting as if it is suffering from some kind of spiritual schizophrenia. If ordination is as important as you (and the CofE) claim - and personally I believe we're all ordained - then you have to come down on one side or another. Hedging your bets just won't do and, if as Bishop you reject the Synod view, you stand in opposition to a majority of your own church. Not a comfortable nor a happy place to be IMHO
But, and I repeat, the Synod view is that expressed in the Five Guiding Principles, the 4th of which reads:
quote:
Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests
continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to
flourish within its life and structures;
That the Church of England has a diversity of opinions on essential doctrinal matters is nothing new either. Taking as an example the Eucharist - there are members of the Church of England who are purely memorialist, there are members of the Church of England who are fully signed up to transubstantiation. And everything in between.
Or baptism. Again everything from a marker of a conversion and grace already received, with a preference to adults only, to the act of baptism being the conveying of that grace, and the water to be applied as freely and widely as possible.
Isn't it all rather confusing to those who might want to understand what we believe?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Your own church'? The C of E claims to be part of the wider western catholic church - the majority of which does NOT believe in ther OOIW.
The western catholic church didn't ordain Bishop North - and they don't recognise his "orders" anyway. It's hardly his church or any Anglicans is it?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Your own church'? The C of E claims to be part of the wider western catholic church - the majority of which does NOT believe in ther OOIW.
The western catholic church didn't ordain Bishop North - and they don't recognise his "orders" anyway. It's hardly his church or any Anglicans is it?
'western catholic' here is not a synonym for 'Roman Catholic'. 'catholic' in its proper meaning, i.e. universal.
As to 'Is it confusing?' Well yes sometimes. But the current Anglican consensus has the merit of allowing space to recognise that none of us has a perfect handle on God. There are elements that we all overlook, but if we are endeavouring to work this out in communion with those who believe differently then we might approach a greater grasp of the underlying truth contained in the divine revelation.
It's not perfect, but there's a hell of a lot wrong with more magisterial approaches too.
One of the common cries amongst those who favour the ordination of women and SSM is how they seek an inclusive church. The challenge will always remain how to do this by including those with whom we disagree, recognising that they might have a better grasp on some aspect of the truth of God than we do. If we don't include them, then it is not an inclusive church.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
1. As to 'Is it confusing?' Well yes sometimes. But the current Anglican consensus has the merit of allowing space to recognise that
2.None of us has a perfect handle on God. There are elements that we all overlook, but if we are endeavouring to work this out in communion with those who believe differently then we might approach a greater grasp of the underlying truth contained in the divine revelation.
1. Sometimes? All the time - you never which "side" the person you are talking to is on
2. I agree none of us have a perfect handle on God - it's impossible as we aren't him. But there's a big gap between the mess we have which seems to want to please everyone and taking a considered decision - however imprecise and possibly wrong - to come down on one side or the other. It will be no more wrong than what we have at present.
Nothing I've heard in this debate over the last 25 years can persuade me that the position we have is all about compromise and keeping things together: it sometimes seems as if the elephant in the room is schism not someone's opposing view on OOW or SSM.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Too often the 'traditionalist' view adopts essentially the simple view I outlined, and ignores its limitations. Too often the 'liberal' view unreflectively adopts the current social mores without rooting it in a theology and it can easily be critiqued as only being concerned with worldly equality.
I wonder about this - I'm not sure that the liberal view does do that (of course, I would say that). I'm reasonably sure there is a theology in there somewhere which is more than worldly. Whether I can articulate it, without a great deal more reading and thinking is another matter altogether! The view of Gaita that Dafyd mentions is helpful.
I wonder too about a theology of gender. Does the church actually need one? And what might it look like? Referring back to the other megathread, the Orthodox view was put forward by Fr Gregory
thusly
quote:
The priest at the altar must "image" Jesus since He (Christ) is the celebrating High Priest. In Catholic/Orthodox Eucharistic theology the celebrating priest is not merely a "worship leader" or a representative of Christ in the sense that an ambassador represents the Head of State. In these last two examples the gender of the representative is incidental to He/She who is represented. In the Church, Christ acts through the priest who in ESSENTIAL matters (ie. not being Jewish or circumcised) must configure to Christ Himself.
This is perhaps a starting point for a discussion about theology of gender. I don't agree with it, largely because I don't understand why gender is an essential matter where other matters are not.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Dafyd - I think I'd be hard pushed to claim there is empirical evidence that anyone is called to ordination. That's not to say there is no evidence, but it is rare for it to be empirical.
Perhaps 'empirical' is the wrong word. 'Experiential' perhaps. In any way, there are non-theoretical considerations. There are candidates for ordination whose testimony that God is calling them is such that traditionalists would accept them for ministry if the traditionalists did not know that they were women.
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I think that degree of representing Christ is profoundly dangerous in many ways.
As in the priest holding that because he does so, his opinions may not be challenged because to do so is challenging Christ. (Who, in the case this argument was used, would have turned over any Jews in his parish to the Nazis because that was the law, and Christians must obey the law. Since the Jewishness of Christ is not essential to the argument, there would be no difficulty in this belief.)
Seems a bit arrogant to me. Which person on Earth could possibly feel fit to represent Christ. And if none of us are fit, why could men possibly be more fit?
Then there is the implicit supposition that since a woman may not represent Christ, women are not fully members of the body of Christ, which could lead to inappropriate treatment outside the church.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
'Your own church'? The C of E claims to be part of the wider western catholic church - the majority of which does NOT believe in ther OOIW.
The western catholic church didn't ordain Bishop North - and they don't recognise his "orders" anyway. It's hardly his church or any Anglicans is it?
Anglican orders derive from the Western Church. The C of E didn't start with Henry 8th.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
Jemima - I think that would be an excellent point for that discussion to start from. I would entirely agree with it except how it counts Jesus' gender as more essential to his personality than his race (circumcision would clearly have potential to be different, though one could argue for an ontological aspect to circumcision under the covenant). Sadly, I don't have the time to write the book that would start from there, though such a sacramental anthropology is precisely what I'd like us to find to begin to address the questions better. (And yes, I am well aware that my description of the liberal - and for that matter the traditionalist - view is caricature, but it indicates something of the diversity of opinion, and the way we often we often perceive each others opinions in these debates).
Exclamation Mark - surely it is better that we start with the individual rather than with the label we want to assign to one aspect of their theology? The Church of England has adopted a position - that men and women may be ordained equally (see the 2nd Guiding Principle 'the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter'. But with the continued recognition that we will make provision for those who disagree with that decision. You can call it a fudge if you like, but it's better than a schism.
Dafyd - experiential is a better word. I agree though, but that's why I think we need a better sense of what it is about gender, theologically speaking, that makes the difference (or not!).
Penny - But all Christians are called to represent Christ - that is what the priesthood of all the baptized is about. The priest only does so distinctively as minister of Christ's sacraments. It is of course where the model as Fr Gregory put it follows down - I'm sure he would be quite comfortable to point to the patristic maxim 'what he has not assumed, he has not redeemed'. (variants in at least Irenaeus and Gregory Nazianzus) If 'woman' is inherently so different from 'man' then we have soteriological issue. But that is why I think this model might be such a profitable place to start attempting to do some theology about the problem.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Tom, that is my position, and why I find the argument about priests having to represent Christ in all except the obviously not essential ones (Jew, circumcised, speaking Aramaic, wearing sandals, whatever) so ungraspable.
When it gets to "I can stand in for Christ and you can't" it has gone away from "We are all called to be Christlike, and none of us are up to it without grace" which is what I would prefer. The priesthood of all believers is profoundly scarey, and ought to be.
[ 08. February 2017, 10:21: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
Yeah, whilst I am keen to defend the idea of the priest standing in persona Christi, it is only a particularly focused form of the way all the baptized stand in persona Christi by virtue of their baptism in living out their vocation. And as you say, that really should be more terrifying than it is portrayed as!
(ET: in persona Christi = in the person of Christ, though used as something of a technical term)
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BabyWombat
Shipmate
# 18552
|
Posted
As someone from TEC I have not paid close attention to this thread, until today, when I had a good read of it. I can only say that it prompts me to give thanks for TEC’s process. The clergy and people of the diocese in need of a bishop put together the profile of what they need/want/vision. The clergy and people receive the names of nominees, do the various levels of interviewing, narrow the slate to a workable number, schedule open Q&A sessions with the candidates, and do the electing. Only after the people have spoken does the House of Bishops get involved in either confirming or denying the election. Hard for them to say “No” after all that local scrutiny.
I suspect that without that process the consecration of the likes of +Barbara Harris, +MaryAdelia McLeod or +Gene Robinson would have been long delayed. I was blessed to attend the consecration of two of them, and what joyous events they were. The congregational response to the question “Is it your will that will that ordain N a bishop?” was a thunderous “That is our will!”
--------------------
Let us, with a gladsome mind…..
Posts: 102 | From: US | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
That sounds remarkably like what happened with appointing a minister to a church in the Congregationalists.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Or Baptists (who are, of course, congregationalists too, at least in Britain).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BabyWombat:
As someone from TEC I have not paid close attention to this thread, until today, when I had a good read of it. I can only say that it prompts me to give thanks for TEC’s process. The clergy and people of the diocese in need of a bishop put together the profile of what they need/want/vision.
I should think it's also about TEC's different theological make-up. People like this new Bishop of Sheffield simply wouldn't remain in the denomination, would they? Or if they did, they'd be mere eccentrics nowhere near positions of power.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Read this today.
Guardian report of Martyn Percy of Christ Church calling for resignation of North
In chasing up the reference to The Society, I realise I had come across it before elsewhere, and wondered just what St Wilfrid and St Hilda think of it, and now with its special membership card to prove clergy haven't been ordained by a woman. (Do they have a special knock on the door, and a password?)
Seriously, though, my current parish in which I coincidentally find myself isn't connected with them. Woman priest-in-charge, women readers, seem a give away of that. But, should someone who cannot be doing with that sort of thing arrive in a rural area with a grouped parish connected to the Society, surely they cannot be properly served according to the traditional concept that the CofE is for everyone. I would feel excluded if I found that 'my' church was tied up with the Old directions and Backward in Faith.
And yes, I know I am a Quaker, so this isn't really relevant, but there's no way of resigning after confirmation, is there, and I currently would like prayers from anyone. Except some little schismatic society whose beliefs are why I left in the first place.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Read this today.
Guardian report of Martyn Percy of Christ Church calling for resignation of North
In chasing up the reference to The Society, I realise I had come across it before elsewhere, and wondered just what St Wilfrid and St Hilda think of it, and now with its special membership card to prove clergy haven't been ordained by a woman. (Do they have a special knock on the door, and a password?)
Seriously, though, my current parish in which I coincidentally find myself isn't connected with them. Woman priest-in-charge, women readers, seem a give away of that. But, should someone who cannot be doing with that sort of thing arrive in a rural area with a grouped parish connected to the Society, surely they cannot be properly served according to the traditional concept that the CofE is for everyone. I would feel excluded if I found that 'my' church was tied up with the Old directions and Backward in Faith.
And yes, I know I am a Quaker, so this isn't really relevant, but there's no way of resigning after confirmation, is there, and I currently would like prayers from anyone. Except some little schismatic society whose beliefs are why I left in the first place.
They don't have special ID cards. Percy made that bit up. (Or at least so a number of their priests have said today!)
For a different perspective, I commend the words of Mother Alice here.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I was about to link to Mother Alice! As a female Anglo-Catholic who is pro-OoW (not all Anglo-Catholic women are!) I am thrilled for Sheffield Diocese and wish we had more bishops of +Philip's calibre. He is a real asset to the CoE. There are plenty of women who oppose women's ordination, Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical alike. I'm not one of them but many will feel that +Philip represents them more fully than +Libby.
[ 24. February 2017, 20:28: Message edited by: Pomona ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Naughty man - I'm glad they don't do that.
And I have to say that, looking at the photos of the two men, I would not trust Percy, and would feel happy with North.
[ 25. February 2017, 08:24: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Yes they have indeed suggested identity cards:
Podmore Speech
This is the speech froM the Forward in Faith Director Colin Podmore at last year's annual meeting. The relevant paragraph reads:
quote:
‘The Society’, it says on the porch card, ‘guarantees a ministry in the historic, apostolic succession.’ Until last year, you could tell by looking who was a priest whose ministry we could receive, and who was not. But now we have male priests ordained by women bishops. We can’t receive their ministry, but how can you tell who ordained whom, for example, when you’re a churchwarden arranging cover in a vacancy? One of the reasons why the Bishops invite priests to register as Priests of The Society is to help answer that question. Deacons and ordinands can register as well. They sign a Declaration which commits them to what The Society stands for. Priests and deacons submit their letters of orders to prove they were ordained by a bishop whose orders we can recognize. The Society bishop sends them a Welcome Letter, so they can prove that they are clergy of The Society. We have begun to issue identity cards to priests.
So yes, identity cards and a register of approved clergy.
[ 28. February 2017, 00:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
Can someone please explain how Philip North can support women's ministry, yet not recognise them as priests?
What would happen if he were gravely ill in hospital and a woman brought the sacrament to him when he was unconscious? Would he then become "taint?"
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Can someone please explain how Philip North can support women's ministry, yet not recognise them as priests?
What would happen if he were gravely ill in hospital and a woman brought the sacrament to him when he was unconscious? Would he then become "taint?"
Not all ministry is priestly - so he can value women as pastors but believe that they are firing blanks at the altar.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The term "catholic christian" is not theirs to define; still less to trade mark. Arrogant, small-minded, self-righteous, self-aggrandising obscurantists.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Can someone please explain how Philip North can support women's ministry, yet not recognise them as priests?
What would happen if he were gravely ill in hospital and a woman brought the sacrament to him when he was unconscious? Would he then become "taint?"
Firstly, the 'theology of taint' is not something +Philip has suggested he subscribes to - and in any case it refers to issues with male priests and women involved in their ordination, not to women priests themselves or any effect on the Sacrament if they celebrate mass. The Society officially rejects a 'theology of taint'. It does exist amongst some members, but +Philip has never done anything to suggest that he's one of them.
Secondly, women acting as Sacred Ministers is not a problem - a woman bringing the Sacrament has not necessarily consecrated it herself. I am guessing in a hospital situation if the Anglican priest was a woman, he would request a Roman Catholic priest instead.
--------------------
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
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Can someone please explain how Philip North can support women's ministry, yet not recognise them as priests?
What would happen if he were gravely ill in hospital and a woman brought the sacrament to him when he was unconscious? Would he then become "taint?"
Firstly, the 'theology of taint' is not something +Philip has suggested he subscribes to - and in any case it refers to issues with male priests and women involved in their ordination, not to women priests themselves or any effect on the Sacrament if they celebrate mass. The Society officially rejects a 'theology of taint'. It does exist amongst some members, but +Philip has never done anything to suggest that he's one of them.
Secondly, women acting as Sacred Ministers is not a problem - a woman bringing the Sacrament has not necessarily consecrated it herself. I am guessing in a hospital situation if the Anglican priest was a woman, he would request a Roman Catholic priest instead.
Pomona - thanks but I'm not sure you've answered my first question. How can North support women's ministries (whatever God has called them to as works of service) but reject them as Priests (ie ,seeking to draw lines where God does not).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Exclamation Mark
What if under Bishop North a woman was appointed Archdeacon at Sheffield Cathedral, something that has not happened in the past?
They seem to have made the acceptance of the belief in the validity of woman's ordination as a matter of personal conscience. They, therefore, accept that other parts of the CofE have other stances and do not seek to impose their stance on those parts. Thus such people have separated out from their institutional role within CofE structures from that of personal devotion. Thus while not accepting communion from a woman priest, they would quite happily appoint women to senior posts within their diocese if that post was available to women and would support women in their career progression within and beyond the diocese. In the case of Sheffield with its history, this would clearly include the role of Archdeacon.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Exclamation Mark
What if under Bishop North a woman was appointed Archdeacon at Sheffield Cathedral, something that has not happened in the past?
They seem to have made the acceptance of the belief in the validity of woman's ordination as a matter of personal conscience. They, therefore, accept that other parts of the CofE have other stances and do not seek to impose their stance on those parts. Thus such people have separated out from their institutional role within CofE structures from that of personal devotion. Thus while not accepting communion from a woman priest, they would quite happily appoint women to senior posts within their diocese if that post was available to women and would support women in their career progression within and beyond the diocese. In the case of Sheffield with its history, this would clearly include the role of Archdeacon.
Jengie
How can you reconcile personal conscience with an institutional role when core beliefs are conflicted?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
His understanding being at variance with others in the same denomination means that there is a lack of integrity somewhere - either by him or by the church allowing two opposing views to be equally valid.
That is how it must be done in a National Church, lest you want it to be split.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
His understanding being at variance with others in the same denomination means that there is a lack of integrity somewhere - either by him or by the church allowing two opposing views to be equally valid.
That is how it must be done in a National Church, lest you want it to be split.
It may be but it don't half look bad to outsiders who expect some kind of consistency (over and above the consistency of having "accommodations").
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
How can you reconcile personal conscience with an institutional role when core beliefs are conflicted? [/qb]
You are a Baptist and you do not know that?!
Seriously, this is what happens in the question of infant baptism in the URC. It is a matter of personal conscience for ministers. The minister can refuse to baptise infants, but if the congregation decides an infant should be baptised then the minister's duty is to find someone else to conduct the service.
More than that can a Baptist minister of the stance that women should not teach a man be a superintendent?
Jengie
[ 02. March 2017, 15:47: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
