|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: New Bishop of Sheffield anti women's ordination
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
BU regional ministers only exist with the support of local BU churches. They can't enforce anything.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
More than that can a Baptist minister of the stance that women should not teach a man be a superintendent?
I would be extremely surprised if such a person were appointed - their position would be completely untenable.
Point of correction: they're called "Regional Ministers" these days.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
More than that can a Baptist minister of the stance that women should not teach a man be a superintendent? Jengie
Me - a Baptist? I would say I've never been so insulted but (laughs)
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Well, crumbs. Bishop North has decided not to take up the post .
I'm appalled by the way things have turned out. Actually beyond appalled really. I supported the legislation because it looked like something traditionalists could live with, but there was always the sneaking suspicion that it was never going to work. And now here we are.
I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again. There are people in the CofE who should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. No traditionalist catholic in their right mind will ever again accept a nomination to a non PEV throne, and so an era ends.
What was most heartening over the past few weeks was the number of women clergy who wrote in support of Bishop North, of they way he has dealt with them in his current ministry, and of his evident gifts as preacher, leader, and senior diocesan in waiting. But we've replaced one form of discrimination with another.
For the first time in years, Rome is looking like the answer for me again.
Desperate. Appalling. What a nest of vipers the CofE has been shown, yet again, to be.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.
Funny you should mention the long suffering Dr John who has been "rejected" as Bishop of Llandaff.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.
Funny you should mention the long suffering Dr John who has been "rejected" as Bishop of Llandaff.
It's been suggested for Philip North, but actually Lambeth and the Armed Forces is coming vacant and that wouldn't be a bad shout for Dr John - the military like a bit of catholicism with their Christianity and would have no dramas whatsoever with the, er, things other people have in the past had dramas with.
Wonder who I ring to make that happen....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.
Funny you should mention the long suffering Dr John who has been "rejected" as Bishop of Llandaff.
It's been suggested for Philip North, but actually Lambeth and the Armed Forces is coming vacant and that wouldn't be a bad shout for Dr John - the military like a bit of catholicism with their Christianity and would have no dramas whatsoever with the, er, things other people have in the past had dramas with.
Wonder who I ring to make that happen....
Bloody hell, things have moved on since Agony Atkins gained notoriety on Thought For The Day, in the 1990s, for a homophobic tirade, which began with a bit of throat clearing along the lines of "of course, no-one endorses the sort of prejudice that we've recently heard about in the Army".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I've met Philip North a couple of times and all I can say is that this is mob rule of the worst kind - Jeffrey John all over again.
Funny you should mention the long suffering Dr John who has been "rejected" as Bishop of Llandaff.
It's been suggested for Philip North, but actually Lambeth and the Armed Forces is coming vacant and that wouldn't be a bad shout for Dr John - the military like a bit of catholicism with their Christianity and would have no dramas whatsoever with the, er, things other people have in the past had dramas with.
Wonder who I ring to make that happen....
Bloody hell, things have moved on since Agony Atkins gained notoriety on Thought For The Day, in the 1990s, for a homophobic tirade, which began with a bit of throat clearing along the lines of "of course, no-one endorses the sort of prejudice that we've recently heard about in the Army".
Yes well, it's amazing how you can change the character of an organisation when you weed all the entrants over a several week period and then have them operating under a justice system controlled by the hierarchy and an institutional culture of expecting people to do as they're told.
If there was any organisation you could expect to turn on a sixpence when someone said "hang on chaps this isn't really cricket" it would be the armed forces.
I'm not saying it's been completely stamped out, but the army, navy and air force tend to do very well in Stonewall's annual list of gay-friendly employers.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
We already have/have had Diocesan Bishops who do not ordain women as priests. How would the appointment of Philip North been any different from these situations?
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:
If there was any organisation you could expect to turn on a sixpence when someone said "hang on chaps this isn't really cricket" it would be the armed forces.
I'm not saying it's been completely stamped out, but the army, navy and air force tend to do very well in Stonewall's annual list of gay-friendly employers.
Good for them! I ought not to be completely surprised, given that a Church Warden in my previous parish is married to an ex-military type who is totally sound on the question, but the whole turning on a sixpence thing, by an entire organisation, is seriously impressive, nonetheless.
Originally posted by Kingsfold:
quote:
We already have/have had Diocesan Bishops who do not ordain women as priests. How would the appointment of Philip North been any different from these situations?
I think that it would be experienced as a retrograde step. I remember discussing the issue with a Churchwarden from the Diocese of Chichester when +Martin Warner was appointed and, whilst he thought that parishes such as his should have access to a Flying Bishop who did ordain women he was basically resigned to the fact that the Diocese had to take one for the team, as it were. But I can see that if someone were in a Diocese which, hitherto, had not had a Traditionalist wearing a pointy hat you wouldn't want to set a precedent. I don't think that it helps that in +Eric Kemp's day, Chichester Diocese was the Cave of Adullam for all sorts of, er, interesting clergy and I can see that lots of people wouldn't really want that model in their own Diocese. I don't think that Philip North would have gone down that road, had it happened, I think that his Episcopate would have been more like that of +Martin. But I can see why the people of Sheffield (and the people of Whitby) have responded as they have.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
It might have helped Philip North if he had distanced himself from some of the wilder views of The Society.
I still can't work out how he can affirm women's ministry on the one hand but deny their public ordination to the same
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It might have helped Philip North if he had distanced himself from some of the wilder views of The Society.
I still can't work out how he can affirm women's ministry on the one hand but deny their public ordination to the same
Because the legislation has made hypocrites of almost everyone involved.
On the one hand traditionalists who stay CofE, but live in the PEV ghetto, have their own chrism masses, and all the rest but at the same time (however sorrowfully) accept the rest of the church getting on with whatever the rest of the church wants to do. Pastorally this includes referring women discerning a vocation to the relevant people to progress it. Nothing there that +North couldn't do, even whilst disagreeing with it.
On the other those who aren't in that camp, signing up to something to get legislation passed in their favour, then crying foul when the legislation is implemented. Frankly, I'm surprised that the CNC went for him in the first place - whilst it was allowed in the terms of the legislation, it was depressingly obvious that this was going to be the outcome.
The honourable thing at this point would be to suspend the women bishops legislation, now it's been found to have serious difficulties, then bring new legislation back to Synod in due course and try and carry it through. But that's not going to happen either - the proponents of the law have got what they wanted so they're not going to give it up.
Meanwhile I'm probably not alone in the Trad AC wing today in wondering if now isn't the time to finally swim.
The sad thing, from a personal point of view, was that I invested so much trust in the Five Principles that I'd taken to describing my position (largely on here) as a Recovering Anglo-Catholic - it seemed that there was a space within the church and a bit of honour and trust on all sides.
I wake up to the news this morning and (genuinely) feel that Bishop Philip, I, and many people I know, have been pushed back into the box. We're not mainstream, we're not wanted, people would frankly rather that we went away. Some of the abuse online and on twitter has been incredible - we're not Christians, we're misogynist, etc.
We'd come up with a compromise that frankly seemed to work (I'm against WO but feel that if it's what most of the CofE want to do then they should do it), had 18 months of living with it and at the first opportunity we're reminded that despite what we thought had been agreed* the reality is something different.
I'm desperately, desperately saddened by it all - for Philip North, for the faithful Trad A-C priests I know, and for the laity in their charge.
It's got so bad I might even rejoin FiF - and I've not been a member since about 2008.
*albeit like I said I never expected them to try it - but it was nicer to live with the fiction and the theoretical possibility than to have the suspicions confirmed.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
Despite not currently living in an ABC parish, I've been worshipping in my village church with a male vicar under a male bishop. It sort of works - I quite like it actually. But that's not much of a future for the next (DV) 50-odd years if it's dependent on the incumbent and who the CNC puts up as a bishop whether I feel I can go to my parish church or not.
What a mess.
Actually, I think this is where I retire from this thread - I've got a lot of thinking and praying to do.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
That it came to someone being appointed to a See and then stepping back from that is regrettable, and at a personal level extremely sad for +Philip.
I do wonder if this hurt could have been avoided, though. In the legal sphere we have a concept of a "test case". A case goes before the Courts testing a principle of law, or application of principles, when in reality this specific case is far from the only case affected by this principle/interpretation. The outcome of that test case then sets a precedent to be applied to future cases.
I feel +Philip and the Diocese of Sheffield have been rather set up as a test case to ask the question whether a Bishop who will not ordain everyone in his or her diocese is capable of filling the role of a diocesan Bishop. (Note, this has nothing to do with that person's calling to the office of Bishop)
I would say this is unfair to all those involved, especially +Philip. Surely the thing to do is to try to work out the answer to that question first in the abstract before trying to apply it to a particular situation. Heck, this could have been part of the debates at and leading up to the GS debate on opening the episcopate to all.
I confess I do find it difficult to see how a Bishop who will not ordain everyone in their diocese can fulfill the role of a diocesan Bishop. The Bishop has the cure of souls in each and every parish in the diocese. How does that work if the Bishop, by their own beliefs, cannot be in communion with a certain proportion of their parish priests. What sort of a Bishop could sit idly by if they felt that a portion of the parishes in their diocese were receiving "sacraments" that were not actually sacraments.
But these questions needed thinking about and resolving before a particular appointment was made. Did the CNC really think that these issues had all been resolved in advance? After what happened in Whitby surely the CNC knew there could be trouble here.
And comparisons with Jeffrey John really are not fair. Sure, they have both stepped back from appointment as Bishops, but... +Philip is actually a Bishop already, his consecration itself was not blocked.
Whatever verbal roughness +Philip has been exposed frankly pales into comparison with the ordeal Jeffrey has been through on multiple occasions. I seriously doubt there have been threats of withholding parish share if +Philip went to Sheffield. Nor was +Philip hauled into Lambeth Palace and forced to withdraw by the powers that be. Nor has his "lifestyle" been described as satanic or demonic.
I am not justifying what has happened to +Philip, but there is a question of degree here...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
iamchristian:
But +Philip isn't the first. The recently retired Bishop of London didn't ordain women (well, actually anyone in practice) to the priesthood. The current Bishop of Chichester likewise doesn't ordain women as priests. We have had test cases. Based on the fact that Chartres is the first diocesan in some time to retire with more people going to his churches than when he took office and the fact that Warner has increased the number of women in stipendiary (and especially in senior) roles in the diocese to a significant degree would both suggest that where the principle was tested, mutual flourishing has occurred.
And we already have at least two other diocesans who are not in full communion with all their priests. The Lords Bishop of Newcastle and Gloucester spring to mind. (And then of course the list of dioceses without any parishes who have asked for alternative episcopal oversight is not long).
In advance the diocesan vacancy in see committee in Sheffield decided not to include the now normal line about wanting a bishop who ordained women. In fact, it looks like they wrote a statement that was essentially a long form version of 'Please can we have Philip North', and left out such statements quite intentionally.
Whilst the public abuse +Philip has received is probably not as bad as Jeffrey John received, a lot of it has got awfully close. Statements about he cannot possibly have any integrity are fairly personal. And there were statements fairly close to saying he must be such an awful person that he might as well be demonic. Still two fine candidates as chief pastors the Church of England has shafted.
Of course, the See of London is now vacant. I see there a diocese that has a long-standing arrangement where it copes with a bishop who delegates all ordinations to the priesthood to his episcopal college. Perhaps a bishop who has significant experience of (successfully) working in an inner London parish, a track record of engagement with poverty and championing the poor, and a passion for evangelism might be called for there? Oh, and a liturgical presence that might mean standing a chance in that cathedral church - that might be useful too!
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
I confess I do find it difficult to see how a Bishop who will not ordain everyone in their diocese can fulfill the role of a diocesan Bishop. The Bishop has the cure of souls in each and every parish in the diocese. How does that work if the Bishop, by their own beliefs, cannot be in communion with a certain proportion of their parish priests. What sort of a Bishop could sit idly by if they felt that a portion of the parishes in their diocese were receiving "sacraments" that were not actually sacraments.
I agree entirely.
I've also read positive things about Martin Warner, for example here: http://www.pickingapplesofgold.com/mutual-flourishing-not-likely/
But even so - for example that MW has set up a Dean of Women's ministry....what is that? A place for someone else to think about it so he doesn't have to? And what is women's ministry anyway? Why is it different to men's ministry?
That a bishop who is opposed to OOW has presided over a growing church doesn't mean very much to me, I'm afraid. Correlation isn't causation, and that he has presided over an increased number of women clergy could just as easily (more likely?) be due to the character of the women themselves.
I dunno. I don't like being the bad guy (girl). It sounds, from those who know him, that Bishop North would have made an excellent Bishop in many ways, and it is a loss to the diocese. And yet, and yet. How many women could have taken that role and similar over the years? We don't see the loss of their ministry because they never had it to lose in the first place.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Basically the whole thing is a complete pigs breakfast. On the one hand I can see why Dioceses where, by and large, the majority of parishes wouldn't want a Traditionalist bishop object vociferously when one is appointed. On the other hand Synod agreed that Traditionalists would be part of the Anglican set up but didn't want the church-within-a-church affair that had existed after OoW in the first place. For those of us who were opposed to a Third Province but thought that provision for a 'loyal opposition' was necessary this is, really, rather bad news. The Con-Evos have their Bishop of Maidstone, so I don't imagine that they are too bothered about the plight of the Trad-Caffs. My own view is that, annoying as the Trad-Caffs are, there ought to be provision for them. If +North is unacceptable to Whitby and Sheffield where ought he to be posted? And if ordinary Diocesan posts are unacceptable then should there not be exceptional provision for those who conscientiously object?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Betjemaniac - as an Anglo-Catholic who strongly favours women's ordination, let me say that many of us are also sad and angry at these events. I would feel very sad at the idea that it would mean you cross to other shores. Please rest assured that there are many women clergy and ordinands who support the full inclusion of traditionalist Anglo-Catholics. I am so sorry that this has happened and I am ashamed of the behaviour of many on 'my side'. Many of us have been heavily criticised for 'endorsing misogyny' by supporting +Philip despite making it clear that we disagree with him on this issue!
I'd love +Philip to become +London but can you imagine the response now?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Ironically I am also feeling very lost within my own church, but given that I'm seeking ordination Rome is not an option - as much as I'd like it to be. I don't want to be in a CoE without room for those who disagree with me.
--------------------
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
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
Jemima - what do you want to show that a compromise might work? There are anecdotal accounts like Jules Middleton's that you linked to that speak to it working. The statistical data we have points in the direction that things are working (granted it cannot ever prove causality). There appears to be an a priori commitment by many critics of the compromise to any possibility of it working.
Chichester was about the only diocese without a Dean of Women's Ministry. I understand that generally the roles were created to have an advocate for women, as an underrepresented minority, on the senior staff of the diocese. Its not about the bishop not needing to think about it, more like someone to make sure he is thinking about it! Martin Warner was certainly not doing anything different in Chichester by creating the role than was being done in every other diocese, which already had one.
As to London, I think it is the only other diocesan see currently in vacancy. If a traditionalist catholic cannot be considered for it, mutual flourishing is dead. But it would also look like the Church is turning away from accepting a catholic understanding of orders, and then I think many catholics (whatever their view on the ordination of women) will find themselves asking whether there is truly place for those who believe in the sacraments and the catholic faith in the Church of England.
Callan - judging from Rod Thomas' statement, his constituency are very much not happy. If the current compromise collapses, they are probably more likely to go. If you don't need a catholic hierarchy, you don't need the denomination anywhere near as much.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Truthfully I've no idea what a successful compromise would look like. I didn't appreciate that Chichester was the only diocese without the Dean of Women's ministry, my apologies. But from the article I linked to, it is framed as a bold, progressive move, when really it's just catching up with everyone else. I still don't see the value of it, but then I will never be in ordained ministry.
I was furious and heartbroken when Bp North was appointed, which is entirely related to my own views about OOW. But I don't want people to not have a job either. Like I say, I don't want to be the bad guy. So the circle can't be squared to me. And I wasn't an ordained woman in the diocese of Sheffield, working under him. They're probably more gracious about it than me.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Truthfully I've no idea what a successful compromise would look like. I didn't appreciate that Chichester was the only diocese without the Dean of Women's ministry, my apologies. But from the article I linked to, it is framed as a bold, progressive move, when really it's just catching up with everyone else. I still don't see the value of it, but then I will never be in ordained ministry.
I was furious and heartbroken when Bp North was appointed, which is entirely related to my own views about OOW. But I don't want people to not have a job either. Like I say, I don't want to be the bad guy. So the circle can't be squared to me. And I wasn't an ordained woman in the diocese of Sheffield, working under him. They're probably more gracious about it than me.
Within the culture of where Chichester was, as I understand it, the move to have a Dean of Women's Ministry was part of the real breakthrough that has come under +Martin Warner to bring the diocese into a place where it has become possible for women to flourish in ordained ministry in there. So, from a Chichester point of view, it was a radical move.
I suspect we not be able to reach agreement on this, but it remains my view (as a catholic committed to the ordination of women to all orders of ministry) that the tension that is being developed in places like Chichester, and that I believe all the evidence pointed would have developed under +Philip in Sheffield, is what will give the creative space to bring about the theology that will allow a less fudged solution in the longer term.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
The DoWM for Chichester is Canon Julia Peaty, who is part of +Martin's staff.
While +Martin may not ordain women, my mole in his diocese tells me he has made huge strides in addressing the serious issue of women in his diocese, their promotion and the fostering of women's vocation.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
Just musing what the response would be if women bishops refused to ordain men.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Just musing what the response would be if women bishops refused to ordain men.
On what grounds?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
I suspect we not be able to reach agreement on this, but it remains my view (as a catholic committed to the ordination of women to all orders of ministry) that the tension that is being developed in places like Chichester, and that I believe all the evidence pointed would have developed under +Philip in Sheffield, is what will give the creative space to bring about the theology that will allow a less fudged solution in the longer term.
Well, it's something to aspire to, I guess. I'd be with you on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
Just musing what the response would be if women bishops refused to ordain men.
Well, if they're white men, they could always join the board of Tescos, where they're in short supply, apparently
Such speculation is interesting, but I don't think it gets us anywhere. We are where we are because the opponents of OOW think that a) women should not be in a place of leadership, or b) Christ didn't choose female disciples* or c) the priest in some way represents Christ at the eucharist in a way in which his maleness is essential** or d) RCs and Orthodox churches do not ordain women and therefore neither should the Anglican church, lest it impede our chances of union with those churches***
So it's really difficult to imagine the shoe being on the other foot, outside of science fiction, I suppose. My imagination is small and can't manage the wrangling of history it would need to get us into that situation.
Though, if we're doing idle speculation ![[Biased]](wink.gif) , I'd say the reaction would be outrage.
*Cue debate about whether the disciples are in some way a blueprint for the priesthood, whether Jesus instituted the Bishop / priest / deacon arrangement etc
**Because he is the bridegroom, and the congregation are the bride. Including the male members of the congregation. And Jesus's maleness is essential in a way that his being Jewish, other physical characteristics, etc etc are not. Cue discussions about humanity & maleness, and what has not been assumed cannot be redeemed, and so forth. [Incidentally, in our sci-fi novel, these could be putative answers to TomM's question]
*** I am only low Anglican pew fodder, but to me there seem bigger fish to fry in these matters first.
tl;dr version: I'm going to follow betjemaniac's example (from the other end of the view spectrum) and go away and think and pray. Though with added TEA and GIN. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Though I'd add that theorising about what would happen if women refused to ordain men remind me of discussions I had with my daughters about this whole affair.
They see this as straightforward discrimination on a par with the Tescos comments etc. I've had to explain that the church is different, it's not about discrimination, it's about tradition and interpretation of scripture and so on and so on, and *** points in my previous post. They were pretty incredulous, but that's young idealists for you.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
Though I'd add that theorising about what would happen if women refused to ordain men remind me of discussions I had with my daughters about this whole affair.
They see this as straightforward discrimination on a par with the Tescos comments etc. I've had to explain that the church is different, it's not about discrimination, it's about tradition and interpretation of scripture and so on and so on, and *** points in my previous post.
Most forms of discrimination are "traditional" and a lot have religious roots (or post facto justifications, if you prefer), so I'm not sure that's much of a distinction. Something can be a "tradition" or based on "interpretation of scripture" and still qualify as "discrimination".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I agree, and FWIW I would draw similar comparisons.
But in this instance I was explaining to my girls the arguments on the opposing side, which do tend to boil down to "But this is the church! It's different!".
Whether this was for the purposes of engaging in disagreement in love (or whatever we're supposed to be doing), helping them be informed in the debate, or knowing the arguments so they can knock them down, I couldn't possibly comment.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Something can be a "tradition" or based on "interpretation of scripture" and still qualify as "discrimination".
Saying that only men are capable of being priests is clearly discrimination. The question is whether it is correct. Does God discriminate between men and women when it comes to the priesthood?
People variously answer that as "yes", "no", "we don't know, so let's play safe", and "what you call a priest doesn't exist".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
The strange thing is that no one in 1992 saw this coming. Was/is the assumption that its a game of chicken and that sooner or later someone will blink and one "side" will win the day if not the argument?
If the revisionist agenda on SSM is adopted and the next AofC is a woman (following London in 2017), what will be the next thing to be addressed? Answers on a postcard please!
I suspect (as an outside observer) that the Anglican via media is now dead and buried. The gloves are off and schism is the reality on our doorsteps. The disagreement can no longer be accommodated - the surprise is that some ever assumed that it could. It's been a train wreck waiting to happen.
It doesn't please me at all - I have many friends in the CofE, a lot of whom will see life and faith in rather different terms than me. It doesn't stop respect nor does it inhibit healthy debate. Some may well move closer to the kind of cross church networks I work in, others will move closer to other groupings. The sad thing is that fragmentation always results in a weaker expression of the DNA of faith - just as blending to find a lowest common denominator of faith expression never does either.
[ 14. March 2017, 05:22: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
They were pretty incredulous, but that's young idealists for you.
I'm old enough to be their Grandma, possibly even their Great Grandma and they make good sense to me.
Well done on trying to explain it to them.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The strange thing is that no one in 1992 saw this coming. Was/is the assumption that its a game of chicken and that sooner or later someone will blink and one "side" will win the day if not the argument?
Why do you think nobody saw this coming in 1992? I don't think that's true.
I would say that the theological arguments for women priests were "won" by the 70s. What was left was the practicalities: cultural and pastoral sensitivity, and by 1992, it was time and past time to install women priests over the objections of those who didn't want them for "cultural" reasons. And by and large, this worked - the cultural objectors waved their hands for a while, and then realized that everything was going to be OK.
The theological objectors never went away. They were in a minority in the 70s and they're in a minority now.
But for the majority - the victors since the 1970s - what should they do? If the majority of your church accepts that women can be priests, and that God is calling women to the priesthood, how long should they keep saying no? For how long should they say "Yes, Kate, we agree that God is calling you to the priesthood, but that's going to upset Mrs. Jenkins, so we're going to ignore what we think God wants. Would you like to take over the flower rota?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
As St Bob of Dylan said:
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
As St Bob of Dylan said:
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand
Problem is I'm only 36...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Some people are born middle aged. Some of us never grow up.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some people are born middle aged. Some of us never grow up.
Ironically that's why I suspect there's a massive crossover in our record collections.... Doesn't make it any easier to live with it though sadly. I'm genuinely struggling with this - from one hour to the next I lurch from thinking it'll all be ok and I can live with it through to looking up the number of the local RC priest. Horrible.
I desperately want to believe that women can be priests validly. Desperately - I've had years of this and it would solve so many problems (most of which admittedly are only problems in my head) - I'm absolutely against discrimination on the grounds of gender in all other situations.
I just don't.
[ 15. March 2017, 07:58: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It's a ridiculous nonsense to think that you can run a church which is able to satisfy people who hold equal and opposite theological positions as ingrained as this. You can't have leaders that the one side think are somehow unable to be leaders due to some law-of-God, you can't have people in charge who refuse to accept the ordination view of the majority. It doesn't work.
Time the CofE woke up and sniffed the coffee, the church is an unholy alliance of up to 5 different churches with wildly different base theological positions which are incompatible. Nobody is gaining anything by pretending that the thing can be held together with sticky tape.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It's a ridiculous nonsense to think that you can run a church which is able to satisfy people who hold equal and opposite theological positions as ingrained as this. You can't have leaders that the one side think are somehow unable to be leaders due to some law-of-God, you can't have people in charge who refuse to accept the ordination view of the majority. It doesn't work.
Time the CofE woke up and sniffed the coffee, the church is an unholy alliance of up to 5 different churches with wildly different base theological positions which are incompatible. Nobody is gaining anything by pretending that the thing can be held together with sticky tape.
Agreed - and in some ways it would be so much easier if the minority just walked away. I get that completely - but many of us (me included) don't want to go. It's a big thing to walk away from a big part of your life and the church that formed you. Particularly in England with all the baggage of post-Reformation history, the Test Acts, etc.
I can only speak for myself obviously but despite accepting all the claims of Rome (and having therefore to subscribe to both Tract 90 and branch theory to hold tenuously to the idea that the CofE, or at least the Trad AC remnant of it, is the Catholic church in England, it's still a massive challenge to actually other myself and go across the Tiber; God is an Englishman after all, and those unconscious assumptions run deep however ridiculous.
I suppose in the long run these existential crises may be doing me some good....
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Agreed - and in some ways it would be so much easier if the minority just walked away. I get that completely - but many of us (me included) don't want to go. It's a big thing to walk away from a big part of your life and the church that formed you. Particularly in England with all the baggage of post-Reformation history, the Test Acts, etc.
I don't think "walking away" will be necessary if things continue in the direction that they're heading. A split in multiple directions seems inevitable.
quote:
I can only speak for myself obviously but despite accepting all the claims of Rome (and having therefore to subscribe to both Tract 90 and branch theory to hold tenuously to the idea that the CofE, or at least the Trad AC remnant of it, is the Catholic church in England, it's still a massive challenge to actually other myself and go across the Tiber; God is an Englishman after all, and those unconscious assumptions run deep however ridiculous.
I suppose in the long run these existential crises may be doing me some good....
OK, but then there are various claims to being the "centre" of Anglicanism, some of which are equal-and-opposite to yours. Ultimately it is a fruitless task if you think you can simply assert your minority theological position and that somehow everyone else will come to realise it - either you will have to leave or you'll find yourself left as a remnant in a financially unviable church that everyone else has left.
To me this whole crisis would have been avoided if everyone had had the courage of their convictions to leave rather than continuing to pretend that impossible differences could be overcome. They can't. Deal.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
From outside, and in a diocese where, alas, women are still not priested. Also only vaguely aware of the system of resolutions and all that goes with that, and the odd but perhaps very Anglican system of flying bishops.
Is a suitable solution to retain this oddity of flying bishops for those who can't take women as priests/bishops/one day perhaps Abps, nor accept the pastoral care of a male bishop who is prepared to ordain and consecrate women. Otherwise to insist that all bishops, diocesan and suffragan, be chosen from those who do accept women?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To me this whole crisis would have been avoided if everyone had had the courage of their convictions to leave rather than continuing to pretend that impossible differences could be overcome. They can't. Deal.
True, but I think it's unfair to put the onus of "courage of their convictions" only on one side though. The current situation is as much a product of the Pro-OOW side agreeing to open-ended promises (first "two integrities", lately "mutual flourishing") for political expedience, as it is of the anti-OOW-er's for not simply buggering off.
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
True, but I think it's unfair to put the onus of "courage of their convictions" only on one side though. The current situation is as much a product of the Pro-OOW side agreeing to open-ended promises (first "two integrities", lately "mutual flourishing") for political expedience, as it is of the anti-OOW-er's for not simply buggering off.
I'm not putting the onus on any particular sect in this debate. I think there are a number of pro and anti sides which could, and I think probably should, have left before getting to this point. I guess the reason that they've not is at least partly because they think leaving is for someone else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
And when the courage of our convictions involves doing all we can to maintain what unity we can?
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
But he was appointed. For good or ill, the decision was made, following due process, that +Philip North was the man for the job. If the point of the 'mutual flourishing' exercise was that a man with his beliefs should be as eligible to become a diocesan as any other candidate, then it worked. He was appointed.
Then he withdrew. Not as a result of failure in process or procedure, but because of personal insults and attacks. This is not about the process being affected or subverted by personal insult and attack (cf Jeffrey John) but because he couldn't take it. Maybe he was unprepared, maybe the insults in his direction were more virulent, obnoxious and offensive than those directed at senior women clergy, women bishops or Jeffrey John over the years although that seems ... unlikely. But nothing in this whole debacle tells me that the process is not fully capable of appointing another man who does not recognise the priestly orders of many of his clergy as a diocesan. Maybe the next one will be less loved, less pastoral, less supportive, but a bit thicker skinned.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Surely there is a point in all of this about the suitability and appropriateness of a non-ordainer (for want of a better word) being appointed to a specific bishopric?
Part of the problem with Sheffield seems to have been that +Philip (a non-ordainer) would have replaced +Stephen who was an ordainer, who in turn replaced +Jack who was also an ordainer. (Prior to that was +David who was a non-ordainer). So +Philip's appointment represented a change in direction in terms of the view of the diocesan. People might well ask why Sheffield having had two ordaining bishops for the past 20-odd years should go back to having a non-ordainer.
There are currently two dioceses with diocesan bishops who are non-ordainers, Chichester and London. There would have been far less controversy, in my view, if +Philip had been appointed to either of these Sees.
Although, given +Philip turned down Whitby as well where he would have been replacing a non-ordainer perhaps this argument doesn't have legs.
Maybe Sheffield has never been that liberal after all. Back in 2011 it did approve at diocesan level the legislation to admit women into the episcopate, but it was very close in clergy and they voted to add an amendment: "to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive Episcopal oversight from a bishop with authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred under the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop"
I increasingly don't know what to think about all this! I found this very helpful.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
The idea of having acceptable sees is problematic. Just the consider the outcry if we put it in reverse: a woman may only be appointed to a diocese whether there are less than x% parishes that wouldn't petition for alternative oversight. (for any value of x)
And if we aren't going to have changes of view in a diocesan bishop, how catholic can a bishop be if she or he is going to succeed an evangelical? (feel free to rotate the labels here)
Down that road lies no space for different traditions to flourish - even ignoring the question of who is valid matter for ordination!
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
