Thread: Flipping Synod - especially the Lay People! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024323

Posted by DunkDuffel (# 16576) on :
 
How could the lay members of the General Synod ignore the overwhelming votes by the Diocesan Synods to approve Women Bishops?!

Grrr!

upset? Yes! Cross? YES!!!!

The C of E will be further marginalised when the nation needs to hear about the Gospel.
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
I can not believe it. I am so angry and frustrated. What sort of message does this give to the world? And to the Church. I can not type any more- I am afraid of what I might say!
 
Posted by verticordian (# 17428) on :
 
Most churches I've been a part of (the churches that praise themselves upon being 'modern' and in touch with society, hmmm) would not allow women anywhere near a leadership role so I'm not sure that is a fair judgement. Whilst I definitely think the result was a bad one, the vast majority did vote in favour of women bishops.

I'm just looking forward to the day when more evangelical churches allow women into leadership positions.
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by verticordian:
I'm just looking forward to the day when more evangelical churches allow women into leadership positions.

I attend an Evangelical C of E Church. Our PCC are very much in favour of women Bishops, and responded to that effect.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.
 
Posted by DunkDuffel (# 16576) on :
 
My arithmetic says that the overall votes were:

Yes 224
No 122
Abs 2

That's a two thirds majority, overall.

I know and respect the rules of the CofE's democracy.

But this isn't right and most of us know it.

This should not stand.

Duncan Myers
Priest
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Could somebody tell me what happened?
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I feel very, very sad for my sisters in Christ. This is another rejection of the gifts they have to offer. I'm reminded of what Florence Nightingale said more than a century ago:
quote:
I offered the church my hands, head and heart. She did not want them. I was told to stay at home and do crochet.

 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I feel very, very sad for my sisters in Christ. This is another rejection of the gifts they have to offer. I'm reminded of what Florence Nightingale said more than a century ago:
quote:
I offered the church my hands, head and heart. She did not want them. I was told to stay at home and do crochet.

This


[Frown] [Votive] [Tear]
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Could somebody tell me what happened?

About 72% overall voted in favour.

To break that down, that's 90% of bishops in favour, 77% of clergy in favour, and 64% of laity in favour.

So it's a 'no'.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
insanity
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Could somebody tell me what happened?

The Church of England Synod has just voted against the women bishop measure proposed. It got more than a two-thirds majority in both the clerical houses, but there were by my arithmetic 5 too few votes in the house of laity to carry it.
 
Posted by verticordian (# 17428) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
I attend an Evangelical C of E Church. Our PCC are very much in favour of women Bishops, and responded to that effect.

But evangelical/charismatic/happy clappy churches I have attended are very much 'no, man is head of woman therefore women cannot do anything but lead worship or speak at women's conferences' which is really depressing. They make the point of being so much more spiritual than C of E and that in their style of worship etc. they're so much more modern and young and trendy (whatever that means) but their response to issues such as this is 200 years out of date.
 
Posted by Ceannaideach (# 12007) on :
 
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE! [Mad]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

[Disappointed]

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
There is no need for anyone to consign the Church of England to these realms. It has just consigned itself to a hell of irrelevance, mutual destruction and ultimately, quite possibly, implosion.

And it was done by a vanishingly small proportion of its membership.

It's enough to make Satan himself laugh like a drain.

[ 20. November 2012, 18:02: Message edited by: FooloftheShip ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

[Disappointed]

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.
Can you name one?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There's the no small matter of 42 out of 44 dioceses voting it through beforehand.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
OK

The now closed thread in Purgatory said something about gutted. So, I thought maybe Synod might have agreed to women bishops but with a ton of restrictions. The vote is a total no?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

[Disappointed]

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.
Can you name one?
Not off the top of my head, admittedly. But I didn't hear anyone complaining about the three-house two-thirds majority requirement before the vote. I understand your disappointment, but thems is and for ages has been the rules.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

In 1992 they should have made no provision at all for those opposed. Either women are priests or they're not, and if they are, they are priests throughout the entire province. And if they are priests, they can be bishops.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In 1992 they should have made no provision at all for those opposed. Either women are priests or they're not, and if they are, they are priests throughout the entire province. And if they are priests, they can be bishops.

That would have been more honest and consistent, Ruth - but then the measure would never have passed. Without the promised safeguards, it would have failed by a country mile.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE! [Mad]

I don't think it is even that - three people who voted 'no' voting 'yes' would have changed it. So now we are stuck with years more wrangling.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
OK

The now closed thread in Purgatory said something about gutted. So, I thought maybe Synod might have agreed to women bishops but with a ton of restrictions. The vote is a total no?

"Gutted" in the UK means someone feels like they are gutted, i.e., devastated by the news.
 
Posted by DunkDuffel (# 16576) on :
 
It's a "No" to the specific proposal set before Synod.

The issue that galvanised the ever-so-slightly limited approval in the House of Laity was the provision for those who couldn't accept the ministry of women bishops.

I'm trying to be neutral but I really don't understand why this group haven't taken up the Pope's generous provisions for the to join the Ordinariate.

Any responses?

Duncan Myers
Anglican Priest
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I am utterly ashamed to be a "public representative" of such an organisation. I am depressed beyond belief. If I could walk away now, I would.

This is a dark, dark day.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
The issue that galvanised the ever-so-slightly limited approval in the House of Laity was the provision for those who couldn't accept the ministry of women bishops.

I'm trying to be neutral but I really don't understand why this group haven't taken up the Pope's generous provisions for the to join the Ordinariate.

Any responses?

Because they are conservative evangelicals?
 
Posted by Arvan (# 13608) on :
 
Anyone know how soon the list of who voted which way is published?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I know it's easy for me to say this as a male, but there's always next time.
 
Posted by DunkDuffel (# 16576) on :
 
Because they are conservative evangelicals?

allied to certain anglo-catholics.

My late Dad always said that politics wasn't a spectrum but a circle. The extremes bend round to meet one another. He, being German, meant radical socialism and National Socialism.

But the same principle applies to conservative evangelicalism and papist anglo-catholicism in this context.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Quite apart from anything else, the House of Laity of GS are notoriously UNrepresetantive of the C of E at large.

They forgot years ago that they are supposed to represent laity at large in the C of E and they have simply become representatives of various minority factions. They have utterly failed in their job, in preference for the glamour of being "spokespeople".

Before Justin Welby can sort out the mess over women bishops, he will need to start root and branch reform of General Synod. Utterly unfit for purpose.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Bugger.

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
quote:
Originally posted by verticordian:
I'm just looking forward to the day when more evangelical churches allow women into leadership positions.

I attend an Evangelical C of E Church. Our PCC are very much in favour of women Bishops, and responded to that effect.
Ditto ditto.

Its not evangelicals who have been scuppering this.

Anyway, bugger.

Anyone for a Ship of Fools caucus on the next General Synod?
 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
The same thing happened with regard to union with the Methodists in the 80'

Same alliances agin it.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Anyone for a Ship of Fools caucus on the next General Synod?

That would be good.
I'm ashamed of myself for not knowing who "my" local lay members are, or talking to them about how they would vote.
I'm thoroughly depressed by this vote, as well as angry.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Had it gone through you'd all be hailing it as a prophetic answer to prayer and evidence that the Holy Spirit is even able to guide synod to the glory of God. Not so the opposite. Funny that.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know it's easy for me to say this as a male, but there's always next time.

How long will that take? And how many people will have left the CofE in disgust by then? How much more irrelevant will the church be in English society by the time it decides to treat women as made in the image of God?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know it's easy for me to say this as a male, but there's always next time.

How long will that take? And how many people will have left the CofE in disgust by then? How much more irrelevant will the church be in English society by the time it decides to treat women as made in the image of God?
I'm not saying that I am happy about it, or that it isn't bad. But I do have faith in the Church. This too shall pass is what I meanter say.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Had it gone through you'd all be hailing it as a prophetic answer to prayer and evidence that the Holy Spirit is even able to guide synod to the glory of God. Not so the opposite. Funny that.

Is that what you say when the parishioners you'd been praying for die unhealed?
 
Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :
 
One of the problems is getting a proper representative House of Laity - if you hold paid employment and/or have family responsibilities then it's very difficult to commit to a position which involves much weekday attendance. And the vast majority of the time the agenda seems like boring stuff

Hence the positions get filled with retired volunteers with axes to grind.

I don't think I've got words to say how shocked and angry I am. [Mad]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

Anyone for a Ship of Fools caucus on the next General Synod?

I'm surprised there isn't one. Could be a lively Shipmeet!
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
In 1992 they should have made no provision at all for those opposed. Either women are priests or they're not, and if they are, they are priests throughout the entire province. And if they are priests, they can be bishops.

But they did make provision for those opposed; for some strange reason they decided that it was inappropriate to tell people that they were hijacking the ship that people had joined and giving it a new belief test - that you accepted that men AND women could be priests. Not that you had to believe anything much else to be a member, mind you, so there is a certain consistency in having this one issue finessed. However the consequence of this piece of politics has now come back to haunt us - we are in a total mess over this issue. And the fact that those political promises proved to as valid as most politicians' promises has now come back to haunt us.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
Because they are conservative evangelicals?

allied to certain anglo-catholics.

My late Dad always said that politics wasn't a spectrum but a circle. The extremes bend round to meet one another. He, being German, meant radical socialism and National Socialism.

But the same principle applies to conservative evangelicalism and papist anglo-catholicism in this context.

Oh, you mean the spectrum from those who believe something to those who believe anything [Snigger] Or should I just point out that this has violated Godwin's law?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

For once, i agree with you.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE! [Mad]

I don't think it is even that - three people who voted 'no' voting 'yes' would have changed it. So now we are stuck with years more wrangling.
Had it gone through we would still have been stuck with 'years of wrangling'. There would have been legal challenges over the mealy-mouthed 'code of practice' as to what 'respect' means.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
I'm trying to be neutral but I really don't understand why this group haven't taken up the Pope's generous provisions for the to join the Ordinariate.

Any responses?

Because the catholic movement exists to witness to the catholicity of the Church of England. Since the early days of the Oxford Movement, anglo-catholics have laboured in less-than-ideal situations.

The 'catholic societies' currently see those who leave for the ordinariate as 'traitors'.
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
I thought there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth on the Ship. Get a grip, people.

Look, if you want to be mad at someone, be mad at those feminists who stopped an earlier version of the legislation this summer, a version well on the way to passing . . . if only they would have supported it.

And why did they stop it?

Because of the provisions for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.

It's those feminists and their own effing vindictiveness that brought about today's defeat.

Yes, irony can suck.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Just once, I'd like to see St. Punk the Pious post something that wasn't completely predictable.

(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

Um... Really?!
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Just once, I'd like to see St. Punk the Pious post something that wasn't completely predictable.

(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

Not well.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Yes, really! St. Punk didn't have the balls to come back to the 2012 election thread after he'd predicted Obama would lose and Nate Silver was a liberal hack. But here he is, blaming this fiasco on feminists, not the idiots who think women should remain second-class members of the Church of England, so I'm taking the opportunity to call him on all of his bullshit.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

Um... Really?!
I don't think Ruth meant this.

Not safe for many workplaces, btw.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Had it gone through you'd all be hailing it as a prophetic answer to prayer and evidence that the Holy Spirit is even able to guide synod to the glory of God. Not so the opposite. Funny that.

Is that what you say when the parishioners you'd been praying for die unhealed?
I have a friend in ministry who visited one of his parishioners who was dying of cancer in order to prepare him for his death and to help him die well. A small group of people in the parish later accused him of killing their friend because he prayed for the Father's will to be done, instead of rebuking the cancer and making him get better. In their case I said precisely that and without any shame whatsoever.
 
Posted by Jigsaw (# 11433) on :
 
I know little of the workings of the General Synod, so need to ask some questions. When can it be considered by General Synod again? Archbishop Sentamu at the end of the live audio feed didn't make it clear.
I listened to the whole audio and was so sad. Seemed to me that those against the motion were mostly just saying "give us time, we'll co-operate to get the right legislation". But how long, oh Lord, how long?
And - yes, as others have said, this majority requirement is not democratic. Does the House of Laity, if not the whole GS, need to be reformed, and if so, how can this be achieved?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Because tolerating heritage sexism in the state religion worked out so well for Irish and Israeli women...

Better to have a longer battle than to agree to setting up structures which will only replicate and nurture more of the same.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
(How did your dogging of Nate Silver go on election day, by the way?)

Um... Really?!
Context.

(I see now that St. Punk has responded at the bottom of the first page of this thread.)
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I don't think Ruth meant this.

Not safe for many workplaces, btw.

Such a relief... Er. Pond difference?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jigsaw:

And - yes, as others have said, this majority requirement is not democratic. Does the House of Laity, if not the whole GS, need to be reformed, and if so, how can this be achieved?

By a two-thirds majority in all three houses. [Biased]
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
Ruth, "idiots who think women should remain second-class members of the Church of England" are few and far between. And I am certainly not one of them.

I know this is Hell, but you surely have a more erudite knowledge of the issues at hand than that. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Two thirds majority is the usual requirement for most constitutional changes on most charity governing documents. It's often required at two successive meetings.
 
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Ruth, "idiots who think women should remain second-class members of the Church of England" are few and far between. And I am certainly not one of them.

I know this is Hell, but you surely have a more erudite knowledge of the issues at hand than that. [Disappointed]

RuthW may, but I'm not sure I do. It looks like that from here...
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Pond difference?

Precisely.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know it's easy for me to say this as a male, but there's always next time.

How long will that take? And how many people will have left the CofE in disgust by then? How much more irrelevant will the church be in English society by the time it decides to treat women as made in the image of God?
I'm led to believe that under synod rules this issue cannot be taken up with the current synod. It will be at least five years before it can be re-addressed.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
If this proportion of people had voted for the Police Commissioners last week (or even the government two years ago) everyone would be acclaiming a landslide victory.

I sat and listened (for as long as I could bear it) to the speeches from Synod and it was middle-class voice after middle-class voice. Call me an inverted snob if you like, but representative it wasn't.
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
My arithmetic says that the overall votes were:

Yes 224
No 122
Abs 2

That's a two thirds majority, overall.

No, it's not. Of a total of 348 votes, 232 would be a two-thirds majority.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

[Disappointed]

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.
Assuming any such other body exists.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Because tolerating heritage sexism in the state religion worked out so well for Irish and Israeli women...

Better to have a longer battle than to agree to setting up structures which will only replicate and nurture more of the same.

This.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
If this proportion of people had voted for the Police Commissioners last week (or even the government two years ago) everyone would be acclaiming a landslide victory.

I sat and listened (for as long as I could bear it) to the speeches from Synod and it was middle-class voice after middle-class voice. Call me an inverted snob if you like, but representative it wasn't.

That's going to be pretty true of any meeting that relies on people being available for several days in the middle of an ordinary working week. You automatically exclude most of the working class and anyone who works in education, and most people in the healthcare sector. Those with time and money are bound to be overrepresented, just as they are in every political party and every charitable organisation.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Not safe for many workplaces, btw.

Perhaps not. But it's going on the Hell music appreciation thread when I set one up.


Oh, and can we have a BIT more vulgarity and general verbal spray please. This is Hell. We can provide you with a nice dead horse if you want to have a peaceable debate about the ordination of women. On this part of the Ship we prefer if you do things like... oh, I don't know... instead of flogging equines, try burning effigies.

Early on in the thread, someone explicitly held back from saying any more lest they got nasty. [Disappointed] That's what we're here for, dearie. Getting nasty.

[ 20. November 2012, 21:17: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Ophicleide16 (# 16344) on :
 
I was surpised when the result was announced, but not disappointed- I don't believe the proposed legislation would have proved satisfatory in the long run.

Incidentally, brilliant opening statement by +Manchester: "Your Grace, as I was saying..."
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
This is all new to me - that two-thirds in every house thing - does it apply to all motions??
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Standard committee and charity orders of incorporation usually require on two thirds majority for a change in constitution, not every vote. Often it is required two meetings in succession.
 
Posted by Arvan (# 13608) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Would any other place have such a large 'yes' down as a 'no'?

[Disappointed]

Er, yes. Any voting body that required a two-thirds voting majority in three chambers/houses would have.
Assuming any such other body exists.
US constitutional amendments need 2/3 in each of senate and representatives and 3/4 of the states.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thank you. That seems relevantly analogous.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arvan:
US constitutional amendments need 2/3 in each of senate and representatives and 3/4 of the states.

And what did giving women the vote need? Was that a topic seen as so massively significant as to be constitutional?

THAT seems relevantly analogous as well.

[ 20. November 2012, 21:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arvan:
US constitutional amendments need 2/3 in each of senate and representatives and 3/4 of the states.

And what did giving women the vote need? Was that a topic seen as so massively significant as to be constitutional?
That would be the fucking Nineteenth goddam Amendment, you prickless fuckweasel.

(profanity added per request)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Fuckweasel I'll accept. But prickless? NEVER!

Anyway, a little bird called Wikipedia tells me the 19th amendment prohibited BANNING women from voting. It did not GIVE women the vote, it just stopped those horrible State thingies from discriminating against them.

For my naive Australian don't-pay-much-attention-to-Synods part, I would have thought that if 42 dioceses want women, 42 dioceses ought to be able to just go ahead and HAVE women.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
IF the CofE wants to continue its crass claims to be an genuinely all encompassing, inclusive, body, then it's got to get used to the idea that this inclusiveness has got to be for everyone, not just at the liberal end of the market. The gays want in - so let the opponents of women bishops stay and be accommodated. Because the alternative is to impose a doctrine test as viscus as the ones that the theological liberals used to complain about.

However the totally culpable failure was that they didn't even get the code of practice together so that Synod could see what they were signing the church up to. There's ZERO excuse for that. But in general - either we're inclusive, or we're not. You want inclusive - go gnaw on it. Me, I don't want inclusive - but at least I'm consistent about it.

Oh - and if you want to widen the area of blame, the rather unpleasant threats from a few MPs warning that the CofE might lose its privileges if it didn't do what they wanted might well have raised a few hackles. Such threats tend merely to wind people up...
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Bet the Bishops try something funny in the morning. GO POINTYHATS.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
How anyone in a country that's had a queen for 50 years can believe that God has a fundamental problem with the symbolism of female leadership is beyond me.

The mental contortions involved must be exquisite.
 
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Bet the Bishops try something funny in the morning. GO POINTYHATS.

Me too. There are some clever people in the HoB who will surely have been planning for this possibility.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Why wasn't it put to the opinion of everyone who is on the electoral roll of CofE churches? Why is a pretty unrepresentative group of the so called laity making the decision?

It can't be beyond the realms of the CofE's organisational ability to get a ballot paper in the hands of everyone on the roll.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people. Onwards and upwards. But sorrowing with my sisters (and brothers) tonight.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Actually Pete those six voters seem to have scuppered the kingdom of God fairly effectively
 
Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
My arithmetic says that the overall votes were:

Yes 224
No 122
Abs 2

That's a two thirds majority, overall.

No, it's not. Of a total of 348 votes, 232 would be a two-thirds majority.
DunkDuffel's anger got in the way of his calculator fingers. My numbers work out at:

Yes 324
No 123
Abstain 2

Total 449

Proportion in favour - 72.2%

I am so mad I am tempted to work towards standing for the next General Synod on a single issue - a single clause measure.

As soon as Synod starts saying that they respect a position and it must be given special relevance, it can never be given enough relevance in the opinion of those holding it.

Those still objecting to women priests trample all over the sensibilities of those (men and women) who see no distinction in the ability of women become ordained - priest or bishop.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

[ 20. November 2012, 23:14: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
I am so mad I am tempted to work towards standing for the next General Synod on a single issue - a single clause measure.

As long as you don't mind my standing on a 'practising gays out' platform. And someone else standing on a 'only baptise adults' platform. Oh, and someone else standing on the issue of Vestments / Eucharistic Doctrine / outlawing Penal Substitution etc etc.

Either we are a broad church or we're not. You raise a lynch mob on the women issue, and I'll raise it on something else...
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
For my naive Australian don't-pay-much-attention-to-Synods part, I would have thought that if 42 dioceses want women, 42 dioceses ought to be able to just go ahead and HAVE women.

Oi mate, I'm with you there. Just need some bishops and their dioceses to show have the balls (figuratively speaking), that is, the strength of their convictions, and appoint/elect a woman to fill to a vacancy as assistant bishop and see where that leads. Was done here in Australia, I'm sure you remember Orfeo, when Peter Carnley went ahead with the ordination of women (then Melbourne and Canberra) to the priesthood without the necessary legislatioon in place.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

[Votive] with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people. Onwards and upwards. But sorrowing with my sisters (and brothers) tonight.

No, sir. The stupid ones are those who just could not abide adequate provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. If they had exhibited that minimum of grace, women bishops would be on the way already.

I'm disappointed at your attitude toward the no voters.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

[Votive] with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.

It's clear you are trying to insult me, but it's not clear for what. You know I actually support women bishops, right?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people. Onwards and upwards. But sorrowing with my sisters (and brothers) tonight.

No, sir. The stupid ones are those who just could not abide adequate provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops. If they had exhibited that minimum of grace, women bishops would be on the way already.

I'm disappointed at your attitude toward the no voters.

Isn't it too obvious to say - find a male bishop? It's not like the church is going to be swamped by women bishops (unless they are better qualified for that position).
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't it too obvious to say - find a male bishop? It's not like the church is going to be swamped by women bishops (unless they are better qualified for that position).

Huh? Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'. And a lot of the issue about the inadequacy of the provision for opponents is that there was perceived to be no guarantee that their concerns would really be respected. The unambiguous imposition of female priests on recalcitrant parishes and dioceses in the TEC despite many promises to the contrary when the legislation was being passed there means that the libruls have NO credibility when they line up saying the same nice things over here. Similarly the way that the provisions of the Act of Synod have been blatantly ignored (an advert for a vacancy in see that was honest enough to admit no opponents of women priests would be considered, for example) means the level of trust here is pretty low. Then the attempts by those nice men in pointy hats to put some teeth into the protections are shouted down - and today's catastrophe shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; as Heinlein comments, a corrupt politician has to stay bought, once he's taken the money (that degree of credibility is all he's got to sell), whereas people with 'principles' have a remarkable ability to interpret those principles in accordance with the prevailing winds at the time. Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely: “What’s the difference between Jurassic Park and the Church of England? Well, one’s a fantasy land populated by dinosaurs . . . and the other’s a blockbuster film.” Let them play in their fantasy land of synods and the House of Lords; and if we're lucky they'll keep their mouths shut.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
The stupid ones are those who just could not abide adequate provision for those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops.

Isn't that what schisms are for?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

[Votive] with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.

2008?

Zach is from the Diocese of Indianapolis. By 2008, Cate Waynick had been Bishop of the Diocese of Indianapolis for 11 years. And, yes, Cate is a woman.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'.

It also has something to do with us being in communion with each other. Several provinces in the Anglican Communion have female bishops, and they are all in communion with the Church of England -- so the idea that you're going to keep some corner of your church free from the touch of female bishops is laughable. If women are bishops in one province, they are bishops in all of them.

So suck it up, buttercup -- you have female bishops. It's just that none of them are English. Yet.

And no, I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who don't like women's ordination, just like I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who want to insist that their racism isn't really racism. It was a mistake to make any provision at all for sexism in the church.
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And no, I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who don't like women's ordination, just like I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who want to insist that their racism isn't really racism. It was a mistake to make any provision at all for sexism in the church.

And that demonstrates precisely why adequate canonical/legal protection for traditionalists is necessary. Not all who claim the name of Christ act with discernment and grace. And that goes (double?) for those in authority.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Such protection is complete bullshit! There are female bishops in the Anglican Communion. Everyone in the communion is therefore in communion with female bishops. The idea of a separate little enclave makes no sense whatsoever. People who don't like female bishops should become Catholics or join up with one of the neo-retro-continuing-sorta-kinda-not-really Anglican groups. Like the one you belong to. [Razz]

ETA: You realize that you've just argued in favor of separate protection for racists within the church, I hope.

[ 21. November 2012, 01:14: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And no, I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who don't like women's ordination, just like I don't give a shit about the feelings of people who want to insist that their racism isn't really racism. It was a mistake to make any provision at all for sexism in the church.

And that demonstrates precisely why adequate canonical/legal protection for traditionalists is necessary. Not all who claim the name of Christ act with discernment and grace. And that goes (double?) for those in authority.
It would be so freaking hilarious if anything besides churches tried to operate in this way. I mean, imagine trying this out:

Dear Citizens of the United States,

We have changed the rules to make it permissible for a black man to be President. However, should you personally object to this course of action (whether out of a sincere theological belief that white people, being descended from the correct son of Noah, are inherently superior, or whether just because your mind is so stuck in the rut of whites being in charge that your stress levels rise far too high at the prospect of change), we have made alternative arrangmenets so that you don't have to recognise that a black man did indeed win the vote. You can pretend that some white guy is in charge. We know it will make you feel better.


Nobody wins from this kind of attempt at negative accommodation. Either the rules apply or they don't. An organisation might have decisions to make about which LEVEL of unit makes the decisions about the rules, and makes the appointments/conducts the elections, but it is completely useless to have a situation which says "these our rules, except when they're not".
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Such protection is complete bullshit! There are female bishops in the Anglican Communion. Everyone in the communion is therefore in communion with female bishops. The idea of a separate little enclave makes no sense whatsoever. People who don't like female bishops should become Catholics or join up with one of the neo-retro-continuing-sorta-kinda-not-really Anglican groups. Like the one you belong to. [Razz]

ETA: You realize that you've just argued in favor of separate protection for racists within the church, I hope.

You realize you have gotten silly now.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

Pity it's not opening your mind. That empty vessel has needed filling for awhile.

As I said to a mate on FB, this all seems very strange from down here. We consecrated our first female bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, in 2008. Frankly, that was way overdue.

[Votive] with all you British mob as you figure out where to go from here.

2008?

Zach is from the Diocese of Indianapolis. By 2008, Cate Waynick had been Bishop of the Diocese of Indianapolis for 11 years. And, yes, Cate is a woman.

I can only assume that in your mind your statement is somehow related to mine.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
I was just saying you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That's all.

[ 21. November 2012, 03:18: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I can only assume that in your mind your statement is somehow related to mine.
Nobody knows what the hell you're on about.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Beeswax: fuck off and die.

Zach: The part that I was responding to (which you somehow left out of your post in response to me) was the reason I was insulting you. Here it is:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

In response to a totally understandable outpouring of angst and grief over a bad decision, which may take years to rectify (in which time, some people who wanted to see this change will have died), you posted this.
So no, sweetie, it wasn't because you don't support women bishops. It was because you are a wanker lacking any empathy.
Plus, not posting the above comment which I was responding to, and then crying ignorance, makes you look disingenuous.
And ... I don't like you. I trust all of that is a good enough reason for insulting you.
HTH.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I didn't post my comment because I know what I posted you twit.

I have plenty of empathy for the supporters of that measure, since I am one of them and all. But there are people talking about leaving the church over this, and hell no I don't feel empathy for that. It is not understandable. We all know full well this just means another vote in 5 years.

I am sorry you are such a hateful shit that you felt the need to hijack this thread over this, Dark Knight.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I usually resolve to not post in the heat of the moment, but it only took me about 10 minutes here to realize that I failed miserably. I apologize for getting upset in public like that. Carry on with the thread.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
< looks around for the peanuts >
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Running a little low on peanuts. We've got popcorn, cashews, and also a large packet of tamari almonds.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Heavens! It's almost as if organized religion is a backwards-clinging bastion of stupidity and blithe offensiveness.

Of course, it's not quite as much of a joke as thinking you need a parasitic organization in order to figure out how to be good people that support each other.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
As an outsider, I share the disappointment of many Anglican Shipmates.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
All the Bishops will now be required to strip before all services, just to check one of them isn't a knavish woman in disguise.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
What are you saying, Chorister? That the Anglican church is essentially an Elizabethan comedy?

Quite apt, really.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people.

Um, would you care to flesh out exactly why you - an Anglican bishop - can publicly accuse these particular people of stupidity?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'.

It also has something to do with us being in communion with each other. Several provinces in the Anglican Communion have female bishops, and they are all in communion with the Church of England -- so the idea that you're going to keep some corner of your church free from the touch of female bishops is laughable. If women are bishops in one province, they are bishops in all of them.

So suck it up, buttercup -- you have female bishops. It's just that none of them are English. Yet.

Given that the Americans had no compunction about consecrating Gene Robinson when the rest of the Anglican communion's bishops strongly opposed the move, making them act in a way effectively denying any acceptance of the wider church's episcopal status, it's clear that this is being proposed as a one way stream; we're supposed to accept that your bishops are kosher, but you don't take ours seriously. So don't be too surprised when you find that actually a woman bishop is not allowed to operate as such whilst in England, so no, de jure, we don't even recognise them as bishops.

But, as I've said before, and I say again, it's about promises having been made that are now being 'cashed'. Of course given that the US government has pretty much never kept a single treaty that it's made with the people they stole their land from, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised if Episcopalians don't take the idea of promises too seriously. And of course the fact that lots of Episcopalian bishops are divorced and remarried shows how lightly they take the solemn vows made before God in the marriage service.

But there are still a few of us who have this funny idea that a promise should just possibly be binding, even when it's a pain in the neck. Perhaps those promises shouldn't have been made. BUT THEY WERE. They were made to get the priesting legislation through. Now, of course, in the best tradition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs coming in and shredding on all those inconvenient treaties, we see the librul fundamentalists deciding to ignore those inconvenient promises.

So, given that promises are fundamental to civilisation - though the USA is testing the contrary hypothesis - do you believe that promises should be kept, or should I tell your children that their mummy is an untrustworthy fundamentalist? Or does that just go with the fact that she's an American?
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people.

Speaking as a supporter of the ordination/consecration of women, this is one of the best arguments I have heard yet for rejecting the motion in Synod yesterday. If the opponents of the ordination of women are just going to be labelled as 'stupid', then no wonder they have no faith in a 'code of conduct' which hasn't even been finalised.

There has been great stupidity here, but it is in the House of Bishops. If you have a proposal that has overwhelming support in the community that you are supposed to be leading, but you can't get the necessary legislation through the decision-making body, then it suggests a pretty impressive level of incompetence.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Just back from the pub. Grr.

The Kingdom of God is bigger than the stupidity of 6 lay people.

Um, would you care to flesh out exactly why you - an Anglican bishop - can publicly accuse these particular people of stupidity?
Oh, please. [Roll Eyes]

Stop with the he-should-be-so-much-wiser-and-more-genteel-than-the-average-Christian stuff. He's annoyed, like many. This is Hell; people rant. Deal.

Or are you going to run and tattle to the UK yellow rags: "Ooooer! Miss! Look what Petey wrote?"
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
daronmedway:

If the incoming archbishop can tweet after the meeting, then pete173 can post on the Ship! Whyever not?

The archbishop-in-waiting tweeted "Very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters, need to surround all with prayer & love and co-operate with our healing God."
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I didn't post my comment because I know what I posted you twit.

Well, my response to you was a result of your comment. So you didn't post it, and then pleaded ignorance. That makes you either stupid, or disingenuous. So - which of these dickheads do you want to be?

I promise to despise you equally either way.

quote:

I have plenty of empathy for the supporters of that measure, since I am one of them and all. But there are people talking about leaving the church over this, and hell no I don't feel empathy for that. It is not understandable. We all know full well this just means another vote in 5 years.

Which a long time to face another vote, which may be unsuccessful. That's not even the point. People may say all sorts of things in a rant. Given the circumstances, I would have thought that was understandable.

quote:
I am sorry you are such a hateful shit that you felt the need to hijack this thread over this, Dark Knight.
You're not mad because I am hijacking the thread. Thread's going along fine without either of our contributions. You're mad because I am shitting all over you.

'Hateful shit' is one way of saying it. I prefer 'misanthrope' personally. Kind of stating the obvious, really. I am such a hateful shit that Rook placed me in a semi-final with orfeo a couple of years back for hell hosting duties. Fortunately for me, I won, and orfeo advanced to the final, where the poor bastard must have lost again and is now having to read every word of this shit. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
daronmedway:

If the incoming archbishop can tweet after the meeting, then pete173 can post on the Ship! Whyever not?

The archbishop-in-waiting tweeted "Very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters, need to surround all with prayer & love and co-operate with our healing God."

Numb nuts is not saying he can't post. He is asking him a question about what he posted. Totally legitimate. Pete has made no secret of his RL identity, and I empathise with his frustration, but no reason someone can't ask him a question about that comment.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
This is Hell. A place for venting.

I don't see why pete173 isn't allowed to be as pissed off as any other Shipmate, just because he is a Bishop. Bishops are people too.

pete173 was far from the only one to be pissed off last night. I was pretty fed up and I'm not C of E. The "scornful wonder" from onlookers over the "by schisms rent asunder" impression is not surprising. Synodical government surely requires the Laity as well as the Bishops and Clergy to factor that into their consciences when voting. There was a lot more going on than the matter of their own strongly held opinions.

However you look at it, this change was blocked by a coalition of Laity votes from folks in otherwise quite strongly opposed strands of the C of E. The members of the groups in that coalition may agree over women bishops but they don't agree on much else. So this was a tactical, rather than a strategic, alliance to block an essentially strategic change urged on them by their Bishops.

Would someone mind telling me what was the perception of the wider common good amongst the blocking coalition? Or the perception of the wider potential damage of continuing to block?

[That question is rhetorical here - I'm going to raise it in the Dead Horse.]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
These are two tweets from one of the local councillors I follow on Twitter. He's not a regular church goer, only comes along to civic events - I follow him because I get to see local planning stuff this way. He commented twice on this vote:
quote:
The Church of England has voted against allowing women to become bishops” Today I denounce the Church of England
quote:
So female Bishops don't make sense, but virgin births, resurrections, talking snakes and parting the seas all do?
If that's what a politically active but non-church going parishioner thinks, what hope for the Church of England as an established church? What hope that church buildings that are being kept upright by local community monetary help and encouragement continue to get that support? How many of those who the CofE serve in parishes for weddings, baptisms and funerals will finally decide they want no more of it? What chance of serving the community now?

[ 21. November 2012, 08:56: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF the CofE wants to continue its crass claims to be an genuinely all encompassing, inclusive, body, then it's got to get used to the idea that this inclusiveness has got to be for everyone, not just at the liberal end of the market. The gays want in - so let the opponents of women bishops stay and be accommodated. Because the alternative is to impose a doctrine test as viscus as the ones that the theological liberals used to complain about.

You know what, I agree. I've long been a champion of diversity in the CofE, but as of yesterday that time has passed.

I now want to see every single bigoted fuckwit who thinks women are icky and can't abide the idea of them ever being in authority to fuck off to Rome where they fucking belong. They can have their little club for bigots with a lovely big neon "no girls allowed" sign over the door, and we can have a church that recognises and accepts the image of God within every human being. They can spend all their efforts in trying to hold back the advance of enlightenment for a few more years, and we can get on with living the Kingdom as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm sick of appeasing these fuckers, and I'm no longer prepared to just wait until they all die off like the unevolved dinosaurs they are. I'm sick of having to say they have a valid theological interpretation of the ontological nature of the priesthood, or whatever bullshit big words they're using to draw attention away from the "no girls allowed" sign they've got nailed to the clubhouse door. Their theology is sexist bullshit. They are sexist bigots, and I'm all out of shits to give about how they feel about me saying that. I want them the fuck out of my church right the fuck now.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Would someone mind telling me what was the perception of the wider common good amongst the blocking coalition?

They don't have one. They're just trying to keep their "no girls allowed" sign on the clubhouse door for as long as they can.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@Marvin, it's not the FiFers, they are mostly dying out or moving away, it's those evangelicals that think that it is reasonable to protest by:

quote:
standing on a 'practising gays out' platform. And someone else standing on a 'only baptise adults' platform. Oh, and someone else standing on the issue of Vestments / Eucharistic Doctrine / outlawing Penal Substitution etc etc.
and
quote:
Similarly the way that the provisions of the Act of Synod have been blatantly ignored <snip> means the level of trust here is pretty low. Then the attempts by those nice men in pointy hats to put some teeth into the protections are shouted down - and today's catastrophe shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; <snip>
Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely:

Personally I'd prefer those evangelicals who think that the CofE is the best boat to fish from either put up and shut up about what the CofE wants or went off to a church that they agreed with theologically.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF the CofE wants to continue its crass claims to be an genuinely all encompassing, inclusive, body, then it's got to get used to the idea that this inclusiveness has got to be for everyone, not just at the liberal end of the market. The gays want in - so let the opponents of women bishops stay and be accommodated. Because the alternative is to impose a doctrine test as viscus as the ones that the theological liberals used to complain about.

You know what, I agree. I've long been a champion of diversity in the CofE, but as of yesterday that time has passed.

I now want to see every single bigoted fuckwit who thinks women are icky and can't abide the idea of them ever being in authority to fuck off to Rome where they fucking belong. They can have their little club for bigots with a lovely big neon "no girls allowed" sign over the door, and we can have a church that recognises and accepts the image of God within every human being. They can spend all their efforts in trying to hold back the advance of enlightenment for a few more years, and we can get on with living the Kingdom as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm sick of appeasing these fuckers, and I'm no longer prepared to just wait until they all die off like the unevolved dinosaurs they are. I'm sick of having to say they have a valid theological interpretation of the ontological nature of the priesthood, or whatever bullshit big words they're using to draw attention away from the "no girls allowed" sign they've got nailed to the clubhouse door. Their theology is sexist bullshit. They are sexist bigots, and I'm all out of shits to give about how they feel about me saying that. I want them the fuck out of my church right the fuck now.

That's how I feel as well. Then I remember quite a few of the fuckers are good friends, with whom I would never question my 'communion' otherwise, and then I just want to [Waterworks]

Not very hellish, except that the feeling does leave me deeply torn. And then I get all hellish and want to rip the blinkers from their eyes. Oh fuck. I don't know. [brick wall]
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
Is there a list of who voted against this?

For me, the critical question is whether, amongst that bunch, there are at least 6 radical WATCH types who aren't happy with the 'respect' language. If so, I seem to remember hearing the group of 6 can re-introduce the measure during this synod with 'non-significant' amended language, such as removing respect. I'm ready to bet there are zero conservative AffCath types who would switch votes in that situation.

Assuming (as I suspect) there aren't 6 such people, the house of laity is shockingly unrepresentative to the extent that we can be certain it's been gamed by politically clever people, and the majority need to play by the same rules. EVERYONE MAKE SURE YOUR DEANERY SYNOD REP FANATICALLY SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW ON WOMEN BISHOPS AND VIEWS THEIR PRIMARY ROLE ON DEANERY SYNOD AS TO MAKE SURE THAT VIEW IS ACTED ON.

Also, we need direct elections to general synod. I see no reason at all why that shouldn't be practical in this day and age.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Alison Ruoff who has been quoted extensively is an evangelical member of General Synod and voted against
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
I'm very much in favor of diversity. However, people need to appreciate that about 99% of the church agrees about the extreme importance of the undiluted authority of 'their' bishop. Satisfying everyone is fundamentally impossible; you either exclude the minority who opposed this measure, you exclude the majority who supported it, or you exclude the 99% who want to see bishops having the authority traditionally given to them. That's why lots of very clever people have tried to come up with a solution, and this pigs ear of a measure is the best they could do.

Those who want to avoid a schism, I'd love to be with you, but you're fighting a battle against the axioms of logic.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
What Leon and Marvin said.

I've been a member of the CofE for 46 years now, and I have no idea how the governance of the church works, how you get elected to deanery, diocese or General synods, or who those people are. I've certainly never been asked to vote for any representative - so to say it fails the Benn test is an understatement.

However, I'm going to make it my business from now on, and if I find I can replace anyone who voted against the Measure, I'm going to make it my business to get them out of that position of power, even if I have to replace them myself.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It's an interesting situation within the Anglican Communion worldwide, and maybe just as well that the Anglican Covenant wasn't brought to bear, as it could have been used to put considerable pressure on the C of E. But ultimately it's not going to be a communion breaking situation for the communion; however, very soon difficulties will arise. In the western world as clergy numbers decline there will be an increased number of clergy coming in a type of 'missionary' situation from overseas. All well and good; but the issue may be that they have been ordained by a woman Bishop and their ministry won't be accepted. The irony of that is that the parts of the communion that do have women Bishops were in some cases C of E mission fields, and its quite telling that even though such places are often more socially conservative, they have a better understanding of the image of God in all people. It's embarrassing to a very large chunk of the communion; but we'll get over it. We were in communion with you before this mess and we'll be in communion with you after.

Schism isn't the way either, nor leaving. I think it's a wake up call to be honest. Firstly, it has revealed a fatal in how the synod operates and it will need revision. Secondly, the church has essentially let the minority voice rule the day. I know that synod is difficult for people to attend who have family jobs etc; (maybe move it to a series of evenings) but if these things are truly important to people then they will have learnt the hard way that you cannot sit back and just hope that the right thing will happen - you have to be actively in it and part of it.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Chorister:
quote:
All the Bishops will now be required to strip before all services, just to check one of them isn't a knavish woman in disguise.
[Killing me] [Waterworks]

Well, that would certainly make the Church more relevant. In some ways.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

However, I'm going to make it my business from now on, and if I find I can replace anyone who voted against the Measure, I'm going to make it my business to get them out of that position of power, even if I have to replace them myself.

Quickly, here's how it works.

Diocesan synod runs the diocese, and can be ignored (today).

The house of laity of General Synod is elected by the house of laity of deanery synods. This is the sole interesting job done by deanery synod; their meetings are otherwise interminably dull.

You have been at deanery synod elections; they happen at APCMs. However, you may not have noticed, as they're usually unopposed (due to a shortage of people who want to sit through interminably dull meetings).

To make matters even worse, deanery synod members are ex-oficio PCC members, so you get a dull meeting to go with your interminably dull one.

I suspect that candidates for general synod may disguise their extreme views at hustings, but I don't have proof of this. To be safe, vote only for people who make their support for women bishops clear, and ignore any doubts you might have about whether those people are really Christians.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't it too obvious to say - find a male bishop? It's not like the church is going to be swamped by women bishops (unless they are better qualified for that position).

Huh? Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'. And a lot of the issue about the inadequacy of the provision for opponents is that there was perceived to be no guarantee that their concerns would really be respected. The unambiguous imposition of female priests on recalcitrant parishes and dioceses in the TEC despite many promises to the contrary when the legislation was being passed there means that the libruls have NO credibility when they line up saying the same nice things over here. Similarly the way that the provisions of the Act of Synod have been blatantly ignored (an advert for a vacancy in see that was honest enough to admit no opponents of women priests would be considered, for example) means the level of trust here is pretty low. Then the attempts by those nice men in pointy hats to put some teeth into the protections are shouted down - and today's catastrophe shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; as Heinlein comments, a corrupt politician has to stay bought, once he's taken the money (that degree of credibility is all he's got to sell), whereas people with 'principles' have a remarkable ability to interpret those principles in accordance with the prevailing winds at the time. Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely: “What’s the difference between Jurassic Park and the Church of England? Well, one’s a fantasy land populated by dinosaurs . . . and the other’s a blockbuster film.” Let them play in their fantasy land of synods and the House of Lords; and if we're lucky they'll keep their mouths shut.
That leads me on to the PEVs, aka "flying bishops" which were created to cater for parishes, laity and clergy who were opposed to the ordination of women. Could they not become reserved posts for men, so that those in the CofE who find the concept of women clergy altogether too much could have their wishes fulfilled?

Then again, that may have been what the opponents of women bishops at Synod were holding out for, which on the grounds that PEVs exist is understandable, if plain wrong.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
'Hateful shit' is one way of saying it. I prefer 'misanthrope' personally. Kind of stating the obvious, really. I am such a hateful shit that Rook placed me in a semi-final with orfeo a couple of years back for hell hosting duties. Fortunately for me, I won, and orfeo advanced to the final, where the poor bastard must have lost again and is now having to read every word of this shit. [Eek!]

Excuse me while my world crumbles around my ears. I'll be in the corner munching on a few peanuts that spilled out the gap at the back of the counter.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
So, the bishops accuse the laity of stupidity but expect the laity to trust them? As Chapelhead says, I wonder why they don't.

Why there were bishops abstaining yesterday, I've no idea. I sympathise with the Bishop of London if he is suffering from a highly debilitating, contagious illness but, otherwise, where was he?

The pain of those disappointed by yesterday's vote must be great - the trads have been there before and know how much it hurts. (I can't remember a vote in Synod going 'our' way before!)

But this was not a vote about the admission of women to the episcopate: it was about this piece of legislation - which was bollocks.

Thurible
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
So, the bishops accuse the laity of stupidity but expect the laity to trust them? As Chapelhead says, I wonder why they don't.

But this was not a vote about the admission of women to the episcopate: it was about this piece of legislation - which was bollocks.

This.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

Why there were bishops abstaining yesterday, I've no idea

Not that it would have made any difference either way.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I suspect that candidates for general synod may disguise their extreme views at hustings, but I don't have proof of this. To be safe, vote only for people who make their support for women bishops clear, and ignore any doubts you might have about whether those people are really Christians.

OK - so it's better to vote for someone on the one issue of women bishops, ignoring the fact that they don't believe a single line of the creed?

It's worth expanding this discussion to point out that the elections for General Synod are done on the Single Transferable Vote system. The simplest way to view this is that the voter gets to put the candidates in order of preference. If their first choice is eliminated as having the least votes, then their second choice 'counts'. So you can be very discriminating in the order that you use, though I tend to agree that manifestos do tend to be lacking in detail. However there are hustings, and I imagine most candidates next time will offer an email address for questions etc etc. Of course the core problem is having to be a Deanery Synod rep; as previously mentioned, the dreary evenings in dank church halls were definitely a low point in my Christian life, though there's no actual need to attend. Actually you won't be entirely surprised to hear that I did tend to try and stir things up [Devil]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Isn't it too obvious to say - find a male bishop? It's not like the church is going to be swamped by women bishops (unless they are better qualified for that position).

Huh? Whatever Episcopal ministry means, it's got something to do with accepting the authority of those who end up set over you, not 'finding a bishop'. And a lot of the issue about the inadequacy of the provision for opponents is that there was perceived to be no guarantee that their concerns would really be respected. The unambiguous imposition of female priests on recalcitrant parishes and dioceses in the TEC despite many promises to the contrary when the legislation was being passed there means that the libruls have NO credibility when they line up saying the same nice things over here. Similarly the way that the provisions of the Act of Synod have been blatantly ignored (an advert for a vacancy in see that was honest enough to admit no opponents of women priests would be considered, for example) means the level of trust here is pretty low. Then the attempts by those nice men in pointy hats to put some teeth into the protections are shouted down - and today's catastrophe shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Trust the bishops? I'd rather trust a corrupt politician I'd just paid off; as Heinlein comments, a corrupt politician has to stay bought, once he's taken the money (that degree of credibility is all he's got to sell), whereas people with 'principles' have a remarkable ability to interpret those principles in accordance with the prevailing winds at the time. Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely: “What’s the difference between Jurassic Park and the Church of England? Well, one’s a fantasy land populated by dinosaurs . . . and the other’s a blockbuster film.” Let them play in their fantasy land of synods and the House of Lords; and if we're lucky they'll keep their mouths shut.
That leads me on to the PEVs, aka "flying bishops" which were created to cater for parishes, laity and clergy who were opposed to the ordination of women. Could they not become reserved posts for men, so that those in the CofE who find the concept of women clergy altogether too much could have their wishes fulfilled?

Then again, that may have been what the opponents of women bishops at Synod were holding out for, which on the grounds that PEVs exist is understandable, if plain wrong.

Problem comes a bit down the line, when the flying bishop is a man, but it turns out that he was ordained by a bishop who themselves was ordained by a woman bishop who of course, what with having labia and tits on whatnot, can't be a real priest so can't validly ordain anyone.

You'd end up having male clergy having to carry around an Apostolic Succession Pedigree document. It'd be like Crufts.

Not to mention perfectly barmy.

[ 21. November 2012, 10:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
OK - so it's better to vote for someone on the one issue of women bishops, ignoring the fact that they don't believe a single line of the creed?

It's always better to vote for someone on the basis of their opinions on the important issues that are likely to be considered by the body that's being voted for, rather than a completely different set of issues that are more important in the grand scheme of things. I don't expect the 2015 synod to consider revising the creed, therefore that isn't an election issue.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Oh, for God's sake!

Justin has two choices: withdraw now or (and I'd LOVE to see this) consecrate a woman suffragan in the chapel at Lambeth as soon as he's enthroned and dare the EA/FIF et al to do anything...

Seriously: Bugger Synod.
Stop the special provisions NOW.
Lose the flying bishops PDQ.
Get Parliament to pass enabling legislation and consecrate a woman NOW.

If EA and FIF don't like it they can leave - join the Southern Baptist Convention or Exclusive Brethren or Rome or whoever.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd end up having male clergy having to carry around an Apostolic Succession Pedigree document. It'd be like Crufts.

Look, there's probably already a fault in the line of apostolic succession, somewhere between Saint Peter and that bloke in 1773 who'd done a spot of usury on the side.

I keep coming back to the monarch. The Anglican Church is an established, State church. Unless Jonathan Rhys Meyers steered me WAY off course (and I'd follow you anywhere Jonathan...), Henry VIII made it QUITE clear that HE was the head of the Church of England, not some bishop.

Which means that the Church of England has had a female leader for a huge proportion of the last couple of centuries. Victoria and ER II between them have been in charge for 123 of the last 175 years. You'd bloody well think someone had noticed by now.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, for God's sake!

Justin has two choices: withdraw now or (and I'd LOVE to see this) consecrate a woman suffragan in the chapel at Lambeth as soon as he's enthroned and dare the EA/FIF et al to do anything...

Seriously: Bugger Synod.
Stop the special provisions NOW.
Lose the flying bishops PDQ.
Get Parliament to pass enabling legislation and consecrate a woman NOW.

If EA and FIF don't like it they can leave - join the Southern Baptist Convention or Exclusive Brethren or Rome or whoever.

Yes. Except these people are still family. Can we survive another round of estrangements, as happened 20 years ago? We lost a lot of beloved siblings, etc.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
Yes. Except these people are still family. Can we survive another round of estrangements, as happened 20 years ago? We lost a lot of beloved siblings, etc.
Still family maybe BUT, as many respected psychotherapists will tell you, there are families where relationships are so toxic that the best thing for all parties can be if the "we're family, we must stick together" nostrum is ditched.

I'd suggest that the CofE is at that moment now.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Better Together.

Thurible
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Better Together.

Thurible

Another attempt to wish AffCath out of existence. Ooops!
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:

I'm trying to be neutral but I really don't understand why this group haven't taken up the Pope's generous provisions for the to join the Ordinariate.

Because they're Anglicans?

Thurible
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I'm glad I'm not at work today. It means I might get through the day not having to acknowledge to anyone that I'm an Anglican priest. Today, I'm ashamed to be.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
Yes. Except these people are still family. Can we survive another round of estrangements, as happened 20 years ago? We lost a lot of beloved siblings, etc.
Still family maybe BUT, as many respected psychotherapists will tell you, there are families where relationships are so toxic that the best thing for all parties can be if the "we're family, we must stick together" nostrum is ditched.

I'd suggest that the CofE is at that moment now.

My biological family is a bit like that. We exchange Christmas cards and meet at weddings and funerals, and we manage not to fight at either though a fair amount of sniping goes on at other times.

We're still family though, and anyone on the outside had better not assume otherwise.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Oh, for God's sake!

Justin has two choices: withdraw now or (and I'd LOVE to see this) consecrate a woman suffragan in the chapel at Lambeth as soon as he's enthroned and dare the EA/FIF et al to do anything...

Seriously: Bugger Synod.
Stop the special provisions NOW.
Lose the flying bishops PDQ.
Get Parliament to pass enabling legislation and consecrate a woman NOW.

If EA and FIF don't like it they can leave - join the Southern Baptist Convention or Exclusive Brethren or Rome or whoever.

Not in a little Chapel. From the Chair of St Augustine in Canterbury Cathedral. Preferably during the enthronement service whilst everyone is watching.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You'd end up having male clergy having to carry around an Apostolic Succession Pedigree document. It'd be like Crufts.

Look, there's probably already a fault in the line of apostolic succession, somewhere between Saint Peter and that bloke in 1773 who'd done a spot of usury on the side.

I keep coming back to the monarch. The Anglican Church is an established, State church. Unless Jonathan Rhys Meyers steered me WAY off course (and I'd follow you anywhere Jonathan...), Henry VIII made it QUITE clear that HE was the head of the Church of England, not some bishop.

Which means that the Church of England has had a female leader for a huge proportion of the last couple of centuries. Victoria and ER II between them have been in charge for 123 of the last 175 years. You'd bloody well think someone had noticed by now.

Yes, yes, and since I consider Apostolic Succession to be at best a pious fiction, it's not me you need to convince.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Sorry Thurible, but I don't believe it healthy to continue a relationship with someone (or people) who make a decision on the competences of a person solely by their gender.

And that's what FiF, "Better Together", AffCath all boil down to.

Forward in Faith = Backwards to Bigotry
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
from Tom M Not in a little Chapel. From the Chair of St Augustine in Canterbury Cathedral. Preferably during the enthronement service whilst everyone is watching.
Couldn't agree with you more, but bearing in mind the vertebral lack of so many of the bishops it would be asked a lot of Justin on his own ... still, would be nice!
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Sorry Thurible, but I don't believe it healthy to continue a relationship with someone (or people) who make a decision on the competences of a person solely by their gender.

And that's what FiF, "Better Together", AffCath all boil down to.

Forward in Faith = Backwards to Bigotry

But as the CofE has committed itself to giving an honoured place to those whom you find unacceptable, then the obvious solution is for you to take your librul fundamentalism down the road to somewhere else. Or alternatively implementing something like the Third Province approach.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Hang on a minute, AffCath - Affirming Catholicism - is pro-women bishops! It promotes the catholic wing of the CofE
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Ender's Shadow ...then the obvious solution is for you to take your librul fundamentalism down the road to somewhere else.
One should never assume: I am no more a rabid feminist than the next man: but I do try to be logical and find the arguments of BOTH sides seriously lacking.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yes, yes, and since I consider Apostolic Succession to be at best a pious fiction, it's not me you need to convince.

Understood. You were the jumping off point, rather than the person I was trying to convince.

And now you've got me being reasonable in Hell. You bastard.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as the CofE has committed itself to giving an honoured place to those whom you find unacceptable

That was a mistake, and one that needs to be rectified immediately. There is nothing worthy of honour in the sexist fuckwits and their bigoted theology.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
and dare the EA/FIF et al to do anything...

<snip>

If EA and FIF don't like it they can leave - join the Southern Baptist Convention or Exclusive Brethren or Rome or whoever.

If by EA you mean Evangelical Alliance then they are not a body opposed to women bishops, but a group which have members with differing views on this matter.

Justin Welby, an EA member, spoke in favour.

If you didn't mean the Evangelical Alliance, then I apologise. Who did you mean?
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches, but there's no time for that Cheval de Mort.

However, I've not been able to work out clearly why the CofE are happy with women priests, but not bishops. If you are happy to have women in leadership roles in the Church, why not have them in the upper echelons?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches, but there's no time for that Cheval de Mort.

However, I've not been able to work out clearly why the CofE are happy with women priests, but not bishops. If you are happy to have women in leadership roles in the Church, why not have them in the upper echelons?

There's something in that. If you're going to go all Biblical, then you should be insisting women say bugger all in church altogether and sit quietly with a hat on and ask their husbands about anything they don't understand, the poor little dears.

As in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnFvbOwToxA

If that, which is the "biblical" position, is too much to swallow, then stop playing "more Biblical than thou" and start weighing up the issue on the basis of justice, equality and fairness, which is what most people are actually doing.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as the CofE has committed itself to giving an honoured place to those whom you find unacceptable

That was a mistake, and one that needs to be rectified immediately. There is nothing worthy of honour in the sexist fuckwits and their bigoted theology.
Oh, do fuck off.

Thurible
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's something in that. If you're going to go all Biblical, then you should be insisting women say bugger all in church altogether and sit quietly with a hat on and ask their husbands about anything they don't understand, the poor little dears.

Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.

[Eek!]

Where DO they get these people from?
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Chorister:
quote:
All the Bishops will now be required to strip before all services, just to check one of them isn't a knavish woman in disguise.
[Killing me] [Waterworks]

Well, that would certainly make the Church more relevant. In some ways.

Not sure whether it would do much for mission though!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Oh, do fuck off.

No. I'm no longer prepared to stay silent about bigotry and sexism in the name of keeping bigots and sexists in the church. How can the church possibly continue to preach a Gospel of love for all of God's children while simultaneously saying that those who teach that half of God's children are second-class citizens of the Kingdom are perfectly right to do so? How can I possibly go out to the streets and spread the Word if part of that Word is that women should Know Their Place?

Why the fuck should I be the one to fuck off? I'm the one preaching love and inclusion, they are the ones preaching bigotry and sexism. They should fuck off to whichever bigoted misogynist shack will take them and leave the church to those of us who actually believe in love.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But as the CofE has committed itself to giving an honoured place to those whom you find unacceptable

That was a mistake, and one that needs to be rectified immediately. There is nothing worthy of honour in the sexist fuckwits and their bigoted theology.
Can someone remind me when Synod allowed itself to bind its successors?

Can someone also explain to me how the measure that contained this clause managed to get parliamentary approval (as they certainly aren't allowed to bind their successors).
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
However, I've not been able to work out clearly why the CofE are happy with women priests, but not bishops. If you are happy to have women in leadership roles in the Church, why not have them in the upper echelons?

Define leadership. You might think you know what it is in this context, but it gets awfully runny around the edges. It could be argued (and was at the time) that the clergy aren't really in charge of anything, they're working under the authority of their respective bishops. Bishops are understood to be a distinct order, so surely it should all be fine as long as they're still all men.

But in truth, it was a pragmatic fudge, which successfully fragmented the anti vote, but the victory may well turn out to have been Pyrrhic. The CofE is now trapped between a bizarre and inequitable stained glass ceiling and the unworkable promises that were glibly made to the anti crowd 20 years ago. Any solutions are either unworkable perpetuations of inequality or backtracking on promises that have taken on totemic symbolism.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.

To which a proper Biblical response would be: and men do whatever a pretty woman asks them to do, like eat forbidden fruit, because they think with their penises.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Any solutions are either unworkable perpetuations of inequality or backtracking on promises that have taken on totemic symbolism.

In which case we should clearly follow the course that removes the inequality. It's the only Christian thing to do.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I think there was also some mischievous interpretation. "There will always be a place" for those who do not believe in women in ministry could have been interpreted as:
I suspect both sides were crossing their fingers behind their backs and choosing which version to go for. Which has led to PEV bishops continuing to ordain people to the CofE who do not believe in women's priesthood.

And that's what I think is wrong. It wasn't providing for those for whom the goalposts have changed, that was entirely reasonable. It was the mischievous empire building to ensure the continuation of that group in perpetuity.

If you choose to become a priest in an church that ordains women and men and refuse to accept that inclusiveness you're being wilfully blind. To then insist on your rights at this stage is unreasonable.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I have maintained that agreeing to alternative oversight and Resolutions was a mistake. This is simply the outworking of that mistake. There should be no no-go areas for women in the church, and if we have to revisit the OoW Act, then so be it.
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
What Thurible said.

Some of those who talk of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. need to look in the mirror to see real bigotry.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why the fuck should I be the one to fuck off? I'm the one preaching love and inclusion, they are the ones preaching bigotry and sexism. They should fuck off to whichever bigoted misogynist shack will take them and leave the church to those of us who actually believe in love.

Because that was the belief of the organisation that you joined. When you became a member of the CofE, that's what it believed and practised. So it's therefore fundamentally unjust now to insist that it expell the people who still believe what it believed when you joined. It's the same as a group of Conservatives infiltrating the local Communist party and then expelling everyone who believes in Marx.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I think there was also some mischievous interpretation. "There will always be a place" for those who do not believe in women in ministry could have been interpreted as:
I suspect both sides were crossing their fingers behind their backs and choosing which version to go for. Which has led to PEV bishops continuing to ordain people to the CofE who do not believe in women's priesthood.

And that's what I think is wrong. It wasn't providing for those for whom the goalposts have changed, that was entirely reasonable. It was the mischievous empire building to ensure the continuation of that group in perpetuity.

If you choose to become a priest in an church that ordains women and men and refuse to accept that inclusiveness you're being wilfully blind. To then insist on your rights at this stage is unreasonable.

As one of those who was stupid enough to believe that the promises made to get the 1992 vote through were honest, I think it's deeply depressing that the real story is that leaders of the church were playing politics. And now we are reaping what they sowed...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
...I've not been able to work out clearly why the CofE are happy with women priests, but not bishops. If you are happy to have women in leadership roles in the Church, why not have them in the upper echelons?

There's something in that. If you're going to go all Biblical, then you should be insisting women say bugger all in church altogether and sit quietly with a hat on and ask their husbands about anything they don't understand, the poor little dears.

As in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnFvbOwToxA

If that, which is the "biblical" position, is too much to swallow, then stop playing "more Biblical than thou" and start weighing up the issue on the basis of justice, equality and fairness, which is what most people are actually doing.

And on the basis of proper contextual interpretation of the Bible. There's the argument that Paul in his instructions to the Corinthian Christians was merely acknowledging the reality of what was going on in that specific town (not giving a universal instruction) - I can't remember the details but something about relatively uneducated women struggling to follow what went on in the church meetings, so getting distracted and starting to talk among themselves.

But otherwise, I agree - I have a certain respect for ultra-traditionalist groups like the Exclusive Brethren, who at least (ISTM) seek to follow the New Testament in a consistent manner.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
What Thurible said.

Some of those who talk of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. need to look in the mirror to see real bigotry.

There's a world of difference between denying people equality based on their gender, and calling people on the fundamental injustice of denying people equality based on their gender.

FFS.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Some of those who talk of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. need to look in the mirror to see real bigotry.

I am intolerant of intolerance. I am bigoted against bigotry.

Go ahead, try to convince me that those are bad things.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Any solutions are either unworkable perpetuations of inequality or backtracking on promises that have taken on totemic symbolism.

In which case we should clearly follow the course that removes the inequality. It's the only Christian thing to do.
I agree, but seeing that such a move would be difficult to achieve (getting ever more difficult as fewer concessions are made to the antis) and involve breaking an old but symbolically important promise, it's hardly surprising that they don't fancy it much and are still trying to walk the tightrope.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Not directly my fight. That being said, Rowan Williams - who has been with the CoE for a while, explained that the Church (all of it) is continually changing throughout history in his paper on Trinitarianism and Ecumenical relations (I don't remember the exact title and my copy of On Christian Theology is loaned out.)

His arguments were pretty convincing. In fact, history validates his observation. The CoE of today is not what the CoE was a few hundred years ago. It is certainly not what the Church was a thousand years ago.

So, perhaps the argument that "you signed onto a church that was the way it was and it is unfair to expect it to change for you . . ." should be:

"You signed onto a church that is constantly changing and evolving while holding onto that which is good and that which brings us all closer to God. Make sure that you do not change for the sake of change, or to be popular, but only to follow the inspiration that comes to you from Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God."

[ 21. November 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Zacchaeus, in response to the suggestion that Bishops should do a striptease before each service to prove they really are male:
quote:
Not sure whether it would do much for mission though!
Oh, and you think that refusing to consecrate women bishops (when we've had women priests for 20 years) WILL?

Nobody outside the C of E will understand this. They don't hear 'tolerance of traditionalists'. They see a glass ceiling. [Mad]
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
I'm generally for upholding the genuine concerns of minority opinions. And in any case, it's not my fight any more. But hey - let's not knock the Synod's democratically resolved decision. Is it not, after all, a triumph of clarity over equality? As we are constantly being reminded - even by women! - women are different. That difference would be hopelessly, ineradicably obliterated, were the church to let them wear purple frocks like the men.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IF the CofE wants to continue its crass claims to be an genuinely all encompassing, inclusive, body, then it's got to get used to the idea that this inclusiveness has got to be for everyone, not just at the liberal end of the market. The gays want in - so let the opponents of women bishops stay and be accommodated. Because the alternative is to impose a doctrine test as viscus as the ones that the theological liberals used to complain about.

If the CofE thinks that being all encompassing is genuinely possible then it is extremely deluded.

And this is a major reason the liberal churches are dying on their feet. "We aren't sexist but we are happy to accept sexists as brothers. We aren't homophobic but we identify with homophobes and enable them." No, that isn't a liberal message in the slightest. It's a fundamentally conservative message of 'the only crime is rocking the boat'. A genuinely liberal movement in the church would be rocking the boat. It would be trying to kick out the Ugandans from the communion. It would be blasted as intolerant by the right for saying "play nicely or don't play at all".

And even then it wouldn't be as intolerant as the conservatives. But it would start attracting liberals and even those who go conservative because they want moral guidance.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Karl:
quote:

Problem comes a bit down the line, when the flying bishop is a man, but it turns out that he was ordained by a bishop who themselves was ordained by a woman bishop who of course, what with having labia and tits on whatnot, can't be a real priest so can't validly ordain anyone.

And there was I all this time thinking this was an activity of God affirmed by the church. When did the old switcheroo happen where we act and God affirms?

posted by Boogie:
quote:

Where DO they get these people from?

Synod lay reps?

Posted by Enders:

quote:

Because that was the belief of the organisation that you joined. When you became a member of the CofE, that's what it believed and practised. So it's therefore fundamentally unjust now to insist that it expell the people who still believe what it believed when you joined.

...and yet, that is precisely what they did when they abolished slavery, and it is precisely the same arguments that you recycle here. There is an eerie parallel between then and now. But hey, the church has at times also believed that certain people should burn. On my better days I too think they should bring this back, seeing I joined a church knowing it did this once and it would be totally wrong to tell me I'm a total prick just because I want to bring it back.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

If you think the supporters of women's ministry in the Church of England are all liberals and the anti-women party all conservatives then you are too ignorant of the situation to have an opinion on it.

OK, not as totally out of the loop a Mark the Bigoted's vile shite about feminists (a group pf people whose front doorsteps he is not fit to lick) but still pretty pathetically ignorant.

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches...

Try reading the Bible then. Because you are wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As one of those who was stupid enough to believe that the promises made to get the 1992 vote through were honest, I think it's deeply depressing that the real story is that leaders of the church were playing politics. And now we are reaping what they sowed...

They were hoinest. They have been kept, and they are still being kept. The majority of the CofE has been bending over backwards to accommodate the likes of FiF. All that's happened is that the minority have increased their demands at every turn. Until they came up with the absurd 3rd province noinsense. They know they can't get it, its just a transitional demand (sureyl? I mean they can't be that stupid can they?) but they seem to have duped enough unthinking people into believing that it is not only on the cards but also neccessary to engineers a complete withdrawal of a large section of the Church of England from any meaningful engagement with the rest. They just sulk in a corner and demand the moon.
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Heavens! It's almost as if organized religion is a backwards-clinging bastion of stupidity and blithe offensiveness.

Of course, it's not quite as much of a joke as thinking you need a parasitic organization in order to figure out how to be good people that support each other.

My partner, who does not have a horse in this race, has been listening as I read out the more interesting posts. He likes this, but wonders if saprophytic is more appropriate then parasitic? He says he is not cynical.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that the Americans had no compunction about consecrating Gene Robinson when the rest of the Anglican communion's bishops strongly opposed the move, making them act in a way effectively denying any acceptance of the wider church's episcopal status, it's clear that this is being proposed as a one way stream; we're supposed to accept that your bishops are kosher, but you don't take ours seriously. So don't be too surprised when you find that actually a woman bishop is not allowed to operate as such whilst in England, so no, de jure, we don't even recognise them as bishops.

But you already have recognized them as bishops.

quote:
Of course given that the US government has pretty much never kept a single treaty that it's made with the people they stole their land from, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised if Episcopalians don't take the idea of promises too seriously.
Given the history of British colonialism, I wouldn't be so sniffy about the failings of the American government. Though what they have to do with the price of tea in China is a bit of a mystery.

quote:
And of course the fact that lots of Episcopalian bishops are divorced and remarried shows how lightly they take the solemn vows made before God in the marriage service.
Divorce is accepted in the CofE now too, so you can get down off your high horse.

quote:
[b]But there are still a few of us who have this funny idea that a promise should just possibly be binding, even when it's a pain in the neck. Perhaps those promises shouldn't have been made. BUT THEY WERE. They were made to get the priesting legislation through. Now, of course, in the best tradition of the Bureau of Indian Affairs coming in and shredding on all those inconvenient treaties, we see the librul fundamentalists deciding to ignore those inconvenient promises.

So, given that promises are fundamental to civilisation - though the USA is testing the contrary hypothesis - do you believe that promises should be kept, or should I tell your children that their mummy is an untrustworthy fundamentalist? Or does that just go with the fact that she's an American? [/QB]

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

First, I don't have children. Second, your anti-American bigotry comes as no surprise, given how much other bigotry you cherish in your heart. Third, I don't feel at all bad about your church or mine not keeping promises to enforce sexism. Once upon a time, we promised the slave states they could keep holding slaves, and then we went back on that promise. Treating women and gay people as second-class in the church is not as excrable as holding slaves, but the principle of not recognizing people as full-fledged members of the church, people made in the image of God, is the same, so I am completely comfortable with anyone going back on promises made to bigots that we will exclude women and gays from complete inclusion in the church.
 
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...
Personally I'd prefer those evangelicals who think that the CofE is the best boat to fish from either put up and shut up about what the CofE wants or went off to a church that they agreed with theologically.

There isn't one to go to. What other church is there that is liturgical, evangelical, and doesn't ordain women?


quote:
Originally posted by ken:

...
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches...

Try reading the Bible then. Because you are wrong.
...

I know you like to think that, Ken, but you are deluded.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Curiosity killed ...: ...
Personally I'd prefer those evangelicals who think that the CofE is the best boat to fish from either put up and shut up about what the CofE wants or went off to a church that they agreed with theologically.

There isn't one to go to. What other church is there that is liturgical, evangelical, and doesn't ordain women?
Those I know in this position are trying to remove the liturgy too, really hate liturgy, doing their best to remove it entirely.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...
Personally I'd prefer those evangelicals who think that the CofE is the best boat to fish from either put up and shut up about what the CofE wants or went off to a church that they agreed with theologically.

There isn't one to go to. What other church is there that is liturgical, evangelical, and doesn't ordain women?


quote:
Originally posted by ken:

...
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I see a clear Biblical instruction and principle not to have women in leadership of Churches...

Try reading the Bible then. Because you are wrong.
...

I know you like to think that, Ken, but you are deluded.

You should try reading The Word instead of the words.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:


I know you like to think that, Ken, but you are deluded. [/QB][/QUOTE]

No, I'm right. You are viewing the word of God through the lens of your prejudices. Really. Just read the thing.
 
Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:


I know you like to think that, Ken, but you are deluded.
No, I'm right. You are viewing the word of God through the lens of your prejudices. Really. Just read the thing. [/QB][/QUOTE]

I know this is Hell, but this is almost worthy of its own Hell call. It is in the view of the authority and origin and reliability of the Bible that the whole disagreement between the evangelical and liberal is based. To just say "read the thing" achieves diddly squat. I know where all the verses are that Rod Thomas will quote to support his view: I just do not give them the same authority that he does.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
The problem is some people can't read an historical document as an historical document.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
If you think the supporters of women's ministry in the Church of England are all liberals and the anti-women party all conservatives then you are too ignorant of the situation to have an opinion on it.

OK, not as totally out of the loop a Mark the Bigoted's vile shite about feminists (a group pf people whose front doorsteps he is not fit to lick) but still pretty pathetically ignorant.

Oh, for pete's sake don't you start too. You know full well that "liberal" means whatever the person saying it wants it to mean.

I'll point out (again) that I am on the liberal side on this particular issue.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Zacchaeus, in response to the suggestion that Bishops should do a striptease before each service to prove they really are male:
quote:
Not sure whether it would do much for mission though!
Oh, and you think that refusing to consecrate women bishops (when we've had women priests for 20 years) WILL?

Nobody outside the C of E will understand this. They don't hear 'tolerance of traditionalists'. They see a glass ceiling. [Mad]

Goodness me Jane R I made a jokey comment about naked bishops, and if you’d seem my diocesan.... [Biased]

– I never said anything about not having women bishops and mission
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by A. Pilgrim:
There isn't one to go to. What other church is there that is liturgical, evangelical, and doesn't ordain women?

The COE hasn't been that in 20 years. Let me suggest you start a mission of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the UK. Don't know what you would call it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Except the Missouri Synod women are already starting to make noise. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Despite what the Catholic bishops might tell you, the debate about women priests is very much alive in the Roman Catholic Church too.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
This is Hell so I am going to be a pedant.

Nobody sees here a glass ceiling. A glass ceiling is supposed to be one that exists but is invisible. Everyone knows it is there. Its a ceiling and there is no illusion women can get throught it. I suggest concrete might be more appropriate.

A glass ceiling would be if the CofE agreed to ordain women bishops and then failed to do so for twenty years.

Jengie
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

Yay, I am not alone!
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
]Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.

[Eek!]

Where DO they get these people from?

Retired Republicans, I'm sure.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

Not that anyone much cares for me agreeing with them, but I've thought this many times. Were you, but any chance, and English major in college?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I'm getting that people are hurt here. But how about a different spin that doesn't lead us to the conclusion "This is the darkest day ever, and the Church is surely dead now."

Instead of "The measure to allow female bishops failed by six measly votes" we go with "The measure to allow female bishops failed by only six votes! Almost there! That's only six votes to absolute, crushing victory!"
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Someone has just said that to millions on radio 2 - and that women are easily deceived because Eve was deceived first, so shouldn't be in charge of anything.

To be fair, I think that's evidence that there are some people who shouldn't be in charge of anything.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Because that crushing victory is 10 years away,
because it follows the statements on same sex marriage,
because the broad church that allowed breadth and worshipping together is being factionalised,

I'm sure I can find some more
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
It's actually only 3 changed votes. But it's still likely to be another 5 years before anything else happens.

Unless the bishops are pulling their underpants on over their tights as we type, about to do something superhuman...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

Not that anyone much cares for me agreeing with them, but I've thought this many times. Were you, but any chance, and English major in college?
Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The sex/gender debate (sorry, Ken, for conflating the two) has been going on since the 70's. The Anglican Communion has been in absolute chaos for longer than I have been alive. I am an anxious to see this over with as much as you, CK.

But I love the Church, and I have faith in her. She is the bride that Jesus loves and will come in glory to vindicate in the end. 10 years is not too long to wait for her. At least for me, because I am certain the Holy Ghost will speak through her in the end.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Now there's an interesting question as to whether I should continue in the CofE given that attitude, but I tend to go for the traditional conservative Evangelical attitude that it's the best available boat to fish from, even if it is taking in water wholesale, ignoring the bench entirely: “What’s the difference between Jurassic Park and the Church of England? Well, one’s a fantasy land populated by dinosaurs . . . and the other’s a blockbuster film.” Let them play in their fantasy land of synods and the House of Lords; and if we're lucky they'll keep their mouths shut.

Given where I live, it's pretty obvious I'm not C of E. If I were, though, and had any concern at all for the integrity of my church--or any love for my church--this is an attitude I would find offensive beyond measure. I'd be tempted to toss anyone promoting this attitude overboard myself.

Lest I be accused of Evangelical-bashing, it has not escaped my notice that not all the traditional conservative C of E Evangelicals on this board agree with this position.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Yes, there should be an honoured place for traditionalists - may I suggest that the honoured place is specifically the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham. They can maintain a specific confraternity of male priests, ordained by male bishops with a male pedigree, with a third order attached for the laity to keep in touch.

They can maintain a traveling roster and visit each cathederal on a monthly basis to offer the eucharist. (The church as a whole can support this by maintaining funds in trust to maintain this in perpetuity.)

Meanwhile, the church could ordain female bishops and carry on with the rest of the business of the church.

In the time between the monthly celebrations, traditionalist laity could participate in non-eucharistic services. The diocesan would maintain their authority in respect to managing the affairs of the diocese, and pastoral support (after all that would be acceptable from a female deacon or canon ?).

The church could also make a commitment to always have at least one male Archbishop.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
may I suggest that the honoured place is specifically the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham.

I see the point, but have all sorts of objections to this, apparently flippant and otherwise. It would make the church culture of this area horrendously unbalanced, and make Walsingham a no-go area to the many others who feel an affinity with the place but are not of that tradition. My fear, and it is only a fear, not a certainty, is that it would make the atmosphere of the national pilgrimage into a permanent feature. I would not welcome this.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

I'll point out (again) that I am on the liberal side on this particular issue.

And I'll point out (again) that I am not a liberal on this issue. Which is why I support women priests and bishops. Unlike, say, Leo - who is a as liberal as a wet blanket in a handcrafted macrame washing basket in the moderately syncretic self-criticism wing of the National Liberal Moderate's Club's annual trip to Somewhere Nice in the Middle of the Road - but has consistently argued against women bishops for years on this forum. Usually throwing in a disclaimer along the lines of "I support women bishops but not yet" before going into all the reasons he doesn't really want them.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

Not really. "Female" is too medical or zoological sounding, and therefore distancing and mildly insulting in this context. "Women" is the politer word to use for humans.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.

The feathered serpent speaks truth.

English doesn't really have the kind of disctinction between parts of speech that over-prescriptive textbooks pretend it does.

quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
... and make Walsingham a no-go area to the many others who feel an affinity with the place but are not of that tradition. .

And this is news in what way?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

Not that anyone much cares for me agreeing with them, but I've thought this many times. Were you, but any chance, and English major in college?
Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
Ken, have you been to Walsingham on a quiet day? Yes, there's still a lot of tat around in the church and the shops in the approach, but you can get away from it, and from the rather over-charged atmosphere which is created on high days.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
And I'll point out (again) that I am not a liberal on this issue. Which is why I support women priests and bishops. Unlike, say, Leo - who is a as liberal as a wet blanket in a handcrafted macrame washing basket in the moderately syncretic self-criticism wing of the National Liberal Moderate's Club's annual trip to Somewhere Nice in the Middle of the Road...
So, you're calling me ignorant for not framing the issue precisely as you do, and for using the word "liberal" in a slightly different sense than you? Maybe I'm just being sensitive, but I am getting pretty fucking tired of this shit.


quote:
...but has consistently argued against women bishops for years on this forum. Usually throwing in a disclaimer along the lines of "I support women bishops but not yet" before going into all the reasons he doesn't really want them.
I am not arguing that. I think it absolutely sucks that this measure failed. Does "we shouldn't overreact or let this get us down" really sound like that to you?
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
It's not "women bishops" and it's not "female bishops".
It's "bishops".
And some of them should be women.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.

It does, yet no one says "men drivers."
I've not heard "men nurses" either, but I've heard "male nurse(s)" plenty of times. I'll leave the pedantry to those who know their gerunds.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
While everyone is (IMO rightly) hacked off at the unholy alliance that saw off the cause for women bishops yesterday, can I say that I resent the use of the "traditionalist" to describe one of the wrecking factions?

I am a traditionalist in that:

1. I think clergy should be pastors to ALL in their parish, not just those who come to church who they find congenial).
2. I don't take the view that any priest required to "do" more than 2 services on a Sunday is over-worked. Nor do I think hell will freeze over if a service - especially one with a baptism - runs slightly over the hour.
3. I think an Evensong congregation has the right to a sermon on the readings at the service, rather than one for the morning because the incumbent can't be arsed to prepare 5 minutes on a second theme.
4. I seriously question whether those clergy who mention that they take services on Christmas Day "even though it should be my day-off" are in the right job.
5. Ditto clergy who delegate the funeral of a current churchwarden to a lay-reader because the best date for the family is their day-off (I kid you not).
6. I don't think an ability to deal with the administrative bumpf from Diocesan Office in timely fashion is the number one priority for a good pastor, or for any parish looking for one.
7. I'm appalled at the insensitivity of people who live rent and council tax free with a working partner pleading poverty to a congregation that includes many living on far less - can they remind themselves that the basic parish stipend is more than the national average salary please.
8. I feel there is more to being a "traditionalist" than a liking for lace, incense and day trips to Norfolk - saying one's offices daily, for example; not hurrying a Matins because the church is cold and the congregation small; supporting events in your own church even if you're not the "star", etc
9. I have a naive feeling that it is humbug for people to do so much to (supposedly) stay in the CofE while refusing to use CofE liturgies - Roman Missal anyone?

I could go on...
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm getting that people are hurt here. But how about a different spin that doesn't lead us to the conclusion "This is the darkest day ever, and the Church is surely dead now."

Instead of "The measure to allow female bishops failed by six measly votes" we go with "The measure to allow female bishops failed by only six votes! Almost there! That's only six votes to absolute, crushing victory!"

Glasses in Hell are always half empty.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Everyone not singing "By the rivers of Babylon" over this must surely be the enemy, I guess.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
He likes this, but wonders if saprophytic is more appropriate then parasitic?

It is more appropriate overall, except that I didn't know it until just now.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marky Punk and the Pious Bunch:
Some of those who talk of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. need to look in the mirror to see real bigotry.

Seriously? You posted that out loud? To the world?

Holy fuck you're lame.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Everyone not singing "By the rivers of Babylon" over this must surely be the enemy, I guess.

Actually, it's more because you try to tell other people not to sing.

FYI, if trying to calm down angry people, saying to them "you shouldn't be angry" is not exactly the best strategy.

[ 21. November 2012, 21:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I suppose I maintain the illusion that it's possible to control one's emotions and be reasonable.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
If that had been the experience of the Ship, the board you are currently reading wouldn't exist.

People get angry and upset when they feel a stake in something. They also get joyous and elated when they feel a stake in something. You don't see the winners of sporting events standing around and going "oh, that was nice", and you don't see the losers being completely unmoved by the failure of their efforts.

Well, except maybe in golf.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I understand that people are upset, and accept that people will lose their tempers from time to time. Heck, I did it upstairs and immediately regretted it.

But wrath is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. Anger needs perspective.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:


But wrath is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. Anger needs perspective.

I don't know how much psych classes you have had yet, but you do realize there is a pretty predictable reaction when you aim a statement like that at already angry people, right?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't know how much psych classes you have had yet, but you do realize there is a pretty predictable reaction when you aim a statement like that at already angry people, right?

It was "aimed" at Orfeo, who doesn't seem to be one of the particularly wrathful ones to me. Forgive me if I am mistaken in that, Orfeo.

Though it seems was have gotten away from the topic of this thread and back to that Styx thread anyhow.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
And while we're being pedantic ...

"Women" is not an adjective. The phrase "women bishops" makes me want to hurt someone. It's "female bishops."

Not that anyone much cares for me agreeing with them, but I've thought this many times. Were you, but any chance, and English major in college?
Let me be a counter-pedant. It's correct that 'women' is not an adjective here, but English allows the construction noun - noun, in some phrases, e.g. women doctors, women drivers.
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."
Quite true. I'm not sure if you are objecting to 'women drivers' on feminist grounds, then, or not; I'm just pointing out that it seems to be grammatical or acceptable. A lot of these things are idiomatic.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Well, except maybe in golf.

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Glasses in Hell are always half empty.

With respect, glasses in Hell are always "Who drank half my gin?"
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

Quite true. I'm not sure if you are objecting to 'women drivers' on feminist grounds, then, or not; I'm just pointing out that it seems to be grammatical or acceptable. A lot of these things are idiomatic.
I'm objecting to treating "women" as an adjective but not "men." These things aren't idiomatic so much as idiotic.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I don't know how much psych classes you have had yet, but you do realize there is a pretty predictable reaction when you aim a statement like that at already angry people, right?

It was "aimed" at Orfeo, who doesn't seem to be one of the particularly wrathful ones to me. Forgive me if I am mistaken in that, Orfeo.

Though it seems was have gotten away from the topic of this thread and back to that Styx thread anyhow.

No, you're not mistaken. Because the truth is I don't have a huge personal stake in female bishops in a country halfway round the world. But I recognise other people DO have a huge personal stake in it. For starters, over 50% of the church's population has more stake than me by virtue of the fact that they're being sent a message of invalidation and I'm not. I get my own messages of invalidation at other times.

And yes, it certainly IS related to that Styx thread. But I'm not going to apologise for discussing the nature of Hell in Hell (and who the blazes would I apologize to? by golly, I'll take the other 3 horsepeople of the apocalypse on...) so long as people keep coming down to Hell to tell people to not be Hellish.

[ 22. November 2012, 00:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Y'see, I don't see "Maybe this isn't so bad" as such a great invalidation.

But it's my fault for saying so in hell, I suppose.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

You really think the above is the equivalent of saying 'Gee, this really isn't so bad'?
You really are a tool.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Y'see, I don't see "Maybe this isn't so bad" as such a great invalidation.

Actually, the invalidation I was referring to was being told that lacking a Y chromosome meant you couldn't be as Godly and spiritual as someone who had one.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Y'see, I don't see "Maybe this isn't so bad" as such a great invalidation.

Actually, the invalidation I was referring to was being told that lacking a Y chromosome meant you couldn't be as Godly and spiritual as someone who had one.
Yeah, I've already said that sucks a lot.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

Quite true. I'm not sure if you are objecting to 'women drivers' on feminist grounds, then, or not; I'm just pointing out that it seems to be grammatical or acceptable. A lot of these things are idiomatic.
I'm objecting to treating "women" as an adjective but not "men." These things aren't idiomatic so much as idiotic.
it's really depressing that there are people round who still defend phrases like this. What is this, 1952?

I for one have no problem at all listening to my English kin wail about this. They were there for us when Lambeth happened.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
You know, Zachy-boy, I have a lot of sympathy for compensating for a whiny, high-pitched overly-earnest early-20's with a general goal of maintaining reason and decorum - for yourself. Because, shit, you probably remember: you flipped so much you seemed acrobatic. I work at being zen a lot myself, with limited success - obviously.

But being all preachy about it on an internet forum? That's some weak sauce, son. And it belies the intrinsic superficiality of your attempt at reason über alles, because if you really were as controlled as you imply you wouldn't find a way to insinuate your (relatively) newfound philosophy into every fucking discussion.

If you can ignore my juvenile manner and rank hypocrisy, please hear my one actual suggestion. BE calm, and maybe people will learn from your example. Because the neo-calmness shrouded with unforgiving commentary about other people's un-calm foibles is annoying and counter-productive.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Not all women were assigned as female at birth. Female relates to sex, woman relates to gender. The two don't always match. Incidentally, what is the CoE position on transgender clergy?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Incidentally, what is the CoE position on transgender clergy?

Well, there's a male to female transgender priest in sole charge on 2 local churches, including the "parish" church a mile from here.

This has been the situation for a few years and followed a longish ministry (?15 years or so - new here so don't know for sure), pre reassignment. The parish (and the bishop), I'm told, were broadly supportive of the change in post, although about 30% of the congregations left never to return. That seemed to be the younger families, not as might be expected, the stuck in the mud old guard.

The biggest hit to the 2 churches was to the one on the council estate. The middle class one seemed more sanguine about the whole process.

The only one I'm aware of but YMMV.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
While everyone is (IMO rightly) hacked off at the unholy alliance that saw off the cause for women bishops yesterday, can I say that I resent the use of the "traditionalist" to describe one of the wrecking factions?

I am a traditionalist in that:

1. I think clergy should be pastors to ALL in their parish, not just those who come to church who they find congenial).
2. I don't take the view that any priest required to "do" more than 2 services on a Sunday is over-worked. Nor do I think hell will freeze over if a service - especially one with a baptism - runs slightly over the hour.
3. I think an Evensong congregation has the right to a sermon on the readings at the service, rather than one for the morning because the incumbent can't be arsed to prepare 5 minutes on a second theme.
4. I seriously question whether those clergy who mention that they take services on Christmas Day "even though it should be my day-off" are in the right job.
5. Ditto clergy who delegate the funeral of a current churchwarden to a lay-reader because the best date for the family is their day-off (I kid you not).
6. I don't think an ability to deal with the administrative bumpf from Diocesan Office in timely fashion is the number one priority for a good pastor, or for any parish looking for one.
7. I'm appalled at the insensitivity of people who live rent and council tax free with a working partner pleading poverty to a congregation that includes many living on far less - can they remind themselves that the basic parish stipend is more than the national average salary please.
8. I feel there is more to being a "traditionalist" than a liking for lace, incense and day trips to Norfolk - saying one's offices daily, for example; not hurrying a Matins because the church is cold and the congregation small; supporting events in your own church even if you're not the "star", etc
9. I have a naive feeling that it is humbug for people to do so much to (supposedly) stay in the CofE while refusing to use CofE liturgies - Roman Missal anyone?

I could go on...

Although no longer an Anglican - I agree with you 100%.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
It does, yet no one says "men drivers."

Quite true. I'm not sure if you are objecting to 'women drivers' on feminist grounds, then, or not; I'm just pointing out that it seems to be grammatical or acceptable. A lot of these things are idiomatic.
I'm objecting to treating "women" as an adjective but not "men." These things aren't idiomatic so much as idiotic.
it's really depressing that there are people round who still defend phrases like this. What is this, 1952?

I for one have no problem at all listening to my English kin wail about this. They were there for us when Lambeth happened.

I'm not 'defending' it. I have no axe to grind in the matter. I'm just pointing out that some noun/noun phrases in English usage are accepted, such as 'women drivers', 'child bride', and 'boy soldier', and others are not, such as 'men drivers'. I don't mind at all if you want to campaign for 'female drivers'.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm objecting to treating "women" as an adjective but not "men." These things aren't idiomatic so much as idiotic.

Man boobs, as in beer...

Given that pretty much every statistic on driving shows that women are significantly safer drivers (though apparently significantly worse at parking), a distinction by gender is defensible. Maybe you should just own the label "woman driver" proudly, given that (definitely) fewer dead bodies on the road outweighs (perhaps) a few more dents in the car?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
There's actually an insurance commercial to that effect, IngoB. But it wouldn't be such a great joke if the viewers didn't know the phrase "woman driver" is almost always used in a sneering, disparaging way. Quetzocoatl, Are you telling me you don't know that? because either you don't, and you've been living in a cave, or you know full well and that wide-eyed "why on earth are you being so sensitive?" post is complete BS.

[ 22. November 2012, 07:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's actually an insurance commercial to that effect, IngoB. But it wouldn't be such a great joke if the viewers didn't know the phrase "woman driver" is almost always used in a sneering, disparaging way. Quetzocoatl, Are you telling me you don't know that? because either you don't, and you've been living in a cave, or you know full well and that wide-eyed "why on earth are you being so sensitive?" post is complete BS.

Hmmm. This is all most odd to me. I've always tended to take a certain amount of umbrage at the fact that the default setting is women drivers and male drivers from the point of view that it suggests that the term "woman" is better defined and safer than "man", since no-one can agree on what a man actually is, and calling someone a man is a contentious act. Therefore, one has to fall back on the fact of maleness. For me, there is a deficiency in the term "male driver" not in the term "woman driver". If you turn them round, "a driver who is a woman" makes complete sense; "a driver who is a male" lacks certain information: a male what? Kangaroo?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Wait, is this a pond thing?

So in the UK, boorish men don't roll their eyes and sniff "Women drivers"? Because in the US, they had a whole Brady Bunch episode about it, it was that common.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
There's actually an insurance commercial to that effect, IngoB. But it wouldn't be such a great joke if the viewers didn't know the phrase "woman driver" is almost always used in a sneering, disparaging way. Quetzocoatl, Are you telling me you don't know that? because either you don't, and you've been living in a cave, or you know full well and that wide-eyed "why on earth are you being so sensitive?" post is complete BS.

I taught linguistics at a British uni, and one of the core ideas in linguistics is description not prescription. In other words, you describe usage, you don't recommend it, or criticize it. So I'm not really being 'wide-eyed'. Where did I say, 'why are you being so sensitive?'

I'm not convinced that 'woman driver' is always used disparagingly. Surely it has a neutral use, in insurance and other driving-related areas?

For a linguist, it's part of the noun/noun constructions in English, such as 'boy soldier', where the relationship is one of identity, (soldier who is a boy), quite different from say, 'child abuse', where the relation is accusative, that is, 'abuse of a child'. Fascinating stuff.

[ 22. November 2012, 07:47: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Please see my post above.

Because, yeah, pretty much when I was growing up, the only time one heard the phrase (outside of an insurance office [Roll Eyes] ) was in the context of a bad joke.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
It's actually only 3 changed votes.

No, this is wrong. The commonly-quoted statistic of 6 votes is based on the assumption that 6 of the nays would have changed to ayes.

The voting figures among the laity were 132 for and 74 against. A swing of 3 votes would have made it 135-71. It's easy to tell whether the required margin has been achieved - just double the "no" vote and see if it's still less than the total for "yes". In this case, it obviously isn't, but if there was a swing of 6 votes, the totals would be 138-68 and the legislation would sneak through.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please see my post above.

Because, yeah, pretty much when I was growing up, the only time one heard the phrase (outside of an insurance office [Roll Eyes] ) was in the context of a bad joke.

Would you consider 'woman doctor' and 'woman bishop' to be disparaging also?

I think a switch to the use of 'female' is going on now, perhaps because 'woman' is considered to be a disparaging usage. Anyway, I notice that 'female driver' is being used more and more.

In my dialect, 'woman doctor' is not disparaging.
 
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You know, Zachy-boy, I have a lot of sympathy for compensating for a whiny, high-pitched overly-earnest early-20's with a general goal of maintaining reason and decorum - for yourself. Because, shit, you probably remember: you flipped so much you seemed acrobatic. I work at being zen a lot myself, with limited success - obviously.

But being all preachy about it on an internet forum? That's some weak sauce, son. And it belies the intrinsic superficiality of your attempt at reason über alles, because if you really were as controlled as you imply you wouldn't find a way to insinuate your (relatively) newfound philosophy into every fucking discussion.

If you can ignore my juvenile manner and rank hypocrisy, please hear my one actual suggestion. BE calm, and maybe people will learn from your example. Because the neo-calmness shrouded with unforgiving commentary about other people's un-calm foibles is annoying and counter-productive.

Dang! Rook. That's positively pastoral. Showing your true colours at last, eh? [Axe murder]


[*Exit quickish stage left.*]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not convinced that 'woman driver' is always used disparagingly. Surely it has a neutral use, in insurance and other driving-related areas?

But in those areas they would say 'female driver'.

Oh my God. I can't believe I'm actually contributing to this thrilling grammatical discussion. Could we get back to the fact that the only bishops permitted in the Church of England are man bishops?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Excuse me, I'm not happy with the phrase 'man bishops'. I think my scrotum is being taken for a ride.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
In Portuguese, they have bispo/bispa, although I have to admit that it looked a bit strange when I saw the latter for the first time.
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
It's actually only 3 changed votes.

No, this is wrong. The commonly-quoted statistic of 6 votes is based on the assumption that 6 of the nays would have changed to ayes.

The voting figures among the laity were 132 for and 74 against. A swing of 3 votes would have made it 135-71. It's easy to tell whether the required margin has been achieved - just double the "no" vote and see if it's still less than the total for "yes". In this case, it obviously isn't, but if there was a swing of 6 votes, the totals would be 138-68 and the legislation would sneak through.

Thanks for that - I should do my own maths and not just quote others, especially when I've been bandying (my own, correctly calculated) percentages around everywhere... [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Excuse me, I'm not happy with the phrase 'man bishops'. I think my scrotum is being taken for a ride.

What makes you think you were supposed to be happy with it? And (I can't believe I'm saying this) what makes you think I care about your scrotum?

[EDIT: If this goes on much longer, I'm going to be getting complaint letters from "Outraged, of Putney".]

[ 22. November 2012, 08:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
And hasn't this thread gone downhill. From accusations that the established church is institutionally sexist and lambasting members of the House of Laity to a discussion of linguistics with a hint of Tits'n'Testicles. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Oh! You live in Putney!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh! You live in Putney!

The interesting thing is that I actually do. So I shall sign myself:

Upstanding scrotum of Putney, London.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

(Statement of interest, although I don't live there now, I used to live in Putney once upon a time.)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Man flu?
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

(Statement of interest, although I don't live there now, I used to live in Putney once upon a time.)

This is not the board for seeking help in resolving your bereavement issues; I merely note that this proves that you are a part of oppressive Metropolitan class that so long dominated the UK [Devil]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

This is emphatically not true based even on a cursory reading of events. The fluffy liberals have bent over backwards to try to accomotate the sexists and if they have any balls at all (remembering that the house of bishops does, at least legally), the next vote will be a straight up and down "we have tried to be nice and after the last vote it became incredibly obvious that the sexists weren't interested in any form of niceness." However the difference next time is that those on the side of being decent human beings are going to show the sexists that packing the House of Laity to carry your regressive agenda is a stunt that only works once.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?

Pfft. What do I know about your cultural stereotypes over there in the land that Neighbours forgot? I just make this stuff up.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Man flu?

Nice example, I was thinking of manservant, although that has become frozen as an idiom.

The difference with man flu, is that this does not mean a flu which is a man, as 'boy soldier' means a soldier who is a boy; but rather, a flu which a man has. So it is more accusative, or subject/object.

Compound nouns are totally interesting, if you have that kind of mind, and the relation between the two elements varies a lot.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
For me this is the fruit of the failure of the Church after 1992 to live up to the promises about the 'honoured status for those opposed' made during the OOW debates. That those proved to be of almost no value meant that when the changer came back for more, they found their promises to be nice - with even less teeth - to be disdained. Personally I suspect that the Third Province approach may be the best solution, given that no rational person can seriously trust the promises made; in retrospect the 1992 vote was squeaked through on the day with far too many hostages to fortune, which can't now be redeemed.

This is emphatically not true based even on a cursory reading of events. The fluffy liberals have bent over backwards to try to accomotate the sexists and if they have any balls at all (remembering that the house of bishops does, at least legally), the next vote will be a straight up and down "we have tried to be nice and after the last vote it became incredibly obvious that the sexists weren't interested in any form of niceness." However the difference next time is that those on the side of being decent human beings are going to show the sexists that packing the House of Laity to carry your regressive agenda is a stunt that only works once.
Yup - it's this sort of labelling and scapegoating that once upon a time would have had you laughed at is why conservatives really should have kicked you out a long time ago. Instead we drank the sedating lies of the liberals that they would 'play nice' - only to be later jerked awake when their promises proved to deceptions designed to let them subvert the institution.

Let's take this from the top again. In 1992 a very stupid promise was made in order to get the OoW legislation through then. Without that promise it would have failed. Because that promise was made, we are all lumbered with it. Now the obvious solution is to turn your back on that promise. However the consequence of this is that NO promise ever made by ANY Anglican ever again should be taken seriously. Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted. No bishop in any synod ever again should be allowed to speak - because we know his words are worthless. Is that really what you want - a total breakdown in trust within the CofE? That's what people proposing this route are suggesting.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
You've heard the arguments, now get the t-shirt.

(I presume it comes in both men's and women's sizes?)
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?


I'd imagined a slightly out of date allusion to dear old Fr Fraser.

Thurible
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Why Putney and not the usual disgusted of Tunbridge Wells?


I'd imagined a slightly out of date allusion to dear old Fr Fraser.

Thurible

I didn't think orfeo could possibly be that out of date
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
As is inevitable on the SoF, as a thread runs out of steam, all the Ad Hominem/ misrepresentative posts start cropping up.
I was pondering how to respond to some such remarks made about my viewpoint by KLB et al back on page 4 when a FBF posted this article on the subject it sums up how the conservative, sexist, mysoginistic bigots are often misrepresented by the tolerant, merciful and kind people.

I think the article calmly and succinctly addresses some of the views which the pro side of the issue superimpose onto the against side.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I think the article calmly and succinctly addresses some of the views which the pro side of the issue superimpose onto the against side.

Yes, it does. What a pity its answers are such bullshit. "Separate but Equal" didn't work for the racists, and it won't work for the sexists either.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
What a load of hoey that article is full of strawman arguments.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Stoker, to start with one of the first assumptions on that article:
quote:
To read the articles and the weight given to the two side’s views, you could quite easily forget that over a third of the “normal” members of the CofE’s General Synod opposed the measure.
A huge part of the grievance is that the House of Laity at General Synod is not representative of the 44 dioceses that voted 42 to 2 for women bishops, at a 75% majority for.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Compound nouns are totally interesting, if you have that kind of mind

TICTH people with that kind of mind.

EDIT: I should have posted that in another thread and cross-linked it back here, but I can't be arsed.

Now, can we please maintain the focus on how gut-wrenchingly disgusted we are with the church of England for managing to block a decision that was actually popular with a very large chunk of its own membership, or alternatively how upset we are that people are sore losers.

[ 22. November 2012, 12:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
QED
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I think the article calmly and succinctly addresses some of the views which the pro side of the issue superimpose onto the against side.

On the other hand, I agree with one of the commenters on the article, who says it falls foul of its own criticisms against those arguing in favour of women bishops.

The article also seems to ignore the sizeable challenge of interpreting the Bible in a contextually sensible fashion. Contrary to the poster, I don't think it's a good idea to disallow anyone from speaking at the General Synod 'if they don’t begin with “The Bible says…” and don’t include the word “but” in the same sentence'.

Unless folks want women to not be permitted to even speak in church meetings, as per 1 Corinthians 14...?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted.

Totally bizarre hyperbole, but hey, it works for me, seeing as how you'd never let me get married anyway.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted.

Totally bizarre hyperbole, but hey, it works for me, seeing as how you'd never let me get married anyway.
That's what Tom Robinson would have said once... [Razz]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
(A warning that this lengthy post is going drag up notions from the sections of my honours thesis that dealt with anti-discrimination law. We're in a whole new century and I still draw from the same well when seeing the endless variations on the same arguments...)

Re Stoker's linked article: I actually find much of it reasonably written, as far as it goes, but I wasn't terribly impressed by this particular line.

quote:
Go to any conservative evangelical church and you’ll find godly women doing all sorts of wonderful ministry,
Erm, no. Not ALL sorts. Which is rather the point. You'll find godly women doing SORTS of wonderful ministry. All the same kinds that men can do. Minus one.

It's a terribly weak response. No-one (at least, no-one sensible) is suggesting that 'no women bishops' is equivalent to 'you prevent women from doing anything at all'. No, it means that you don't let women do a particular thing. The thing that we're talking about. It's not very appropriate, in adult conversation, to try and distract and say "ooh, look at all the other pretty toys you could be playing with".

The bit about 'equal doesn't mean the same roles' is also pretty weak. The principle is in fact correct, but then it goes nowhere. Yes, men and women DO have some differences. Yes, only women can get pregnant. Well spotted. That's because they have this thing called a 'womb'. The number of tasks for which a womb is an essential component appears, remarkably, to be restricted to developing a foetus. It doesn't appear to play any observable role in other tasks such as chopping vegetables, driving cars, writing essays, running seminars, keeping a pointy hat on top of a head, standing behind a table looking serious or cleaning out the fish pond.

If people want to argue that there is a RELEVANT difference between men and women such that women are not suited to senior leadership in the church, then I'm all ears (although frankly it'd be much easier, as a matter of logic, to argue that they're not suited for the priesthood, rather than have the odd halfway position that currently exists).

The fundamental problem I have with the assertion that God has decreed that men can perform a task and women can't is that no-one ever goes on to explain WHY God might have done this. And the God I believe in usually does things for sensible reasons, or at least some kind of reason. I don't hold with the idea that God is generally ineffable or capricious.

So I expect some kind of attempt, at least, at articulating what it is about men that God prefers in this area. What characteristic did he give them that he didn't give to women, to make men intrinsically more suited to the task.

I'm all in favour of recognising the relevant differences between men and women. I'm in favour of recognising the physical differences when those physical differences genuinely make a difference to the subject at hand - but that doesn't cover much more than childbirth and sports requiring physical size and strength. The fundamental reason I support women being leaders in the church is the complete failure of people to explain to me where the relevant difference is, other than a shrug of the shoulders and a statement that it depends not on evidence, but on faithful receipt of what we think God said without any use of the skills in logic and rationality we also received from Him.

[ 22. November 2012, 12:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted.

Totally bizarre hyperbole, but hey, it works for me, seeing as how you'd never let me get married anyway.
That's what Tom Robinson would have said once... [Razz]
[Roll Eyes] Fine, then. You'd only let me get married to about 1 out of every 500 people I'd be mutually attracted to. Happy?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Far too reasonable for Hell, Orfeo, but [Overused]

eta:
quote:
no-one ever goes on to explain WHY God might have done this. And the God I believe in usually does things for sensible reasons, or at least some kind of reason. I don't hold with the idea that God is generally ineffable or capricious.
is what does it for me. Exactly the same applies to sexuality, for what it's worth.

[ 22. November 2012, 12:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Far too reasonable for Hell, Orfeo,

Yeah, I know. My 5-wing takes over from my raging mess of a Enneagram type 4 personality sometimes. Bugger, that's not supposed to happen here.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
That's a terrible article Stoker.

quote:
Just a thought ... Here’s one motion for General Synod which would keep the debate on track: no one is allowed to speak if they don’t begin with “The Bible says…” and don’t include the word “but” in the same sentence. There’d still be a debate—but it would be a biblical one, not an increasingly myth-based one.
The bible says you can't be a disciple of Christ unless you give up all your possessions.

But really that's just a myth.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Evensong, you just gave me a light bulb moment. Biblical support for women bishops:

quote:
For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Goodness me, it's been sitting there in 1 Corinthians 11:10 all along.

Conversely, 3 verses earlier it's made perfectly clear that men absolutely should NOT be wearing hats in church like that.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
[Big Grin]

You should totally make an internet meme about that!

[ 22. November 2012, 12:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Yup - it's this sort of labelling and scapegoating that once upon a time would have had you laughed at is why conservatives really should have kicked you out a long time ago. Instead we drank the sedating lies of the liberals that they would 'play nice' - only to be later jerked awake when their promises proved to deceptions designed to let them subvert the institution.

Let's take this from the top again. In 1992 a very stupid promise was made in order to get the OoW legislation through then. Without that promise it would have failed. Because that promise was made, we are all lumbered with it. Now the obvious solution is to turn your back on that promise. However the consequence of this is that NO promise ever made by ANY Anglican ever again should be taken seriously. Our marriage services should be disrupted because our promises can't be trusted. No bishop in any synod ever again should be allowed to speak - because we know his words are worthless. Is that really what you want - a total breakdown in trust within the CofE? That's what people proposing this route are suggesting.

Let's indeed take this from the top.

In 1993 a document was produced called Bonds of Peace, which is, I assume the document you base your idea of a broken promise on. I can't find the whole thing online alas but the excerpts I can find put the thing into context.
quote:
Paragraph 3: We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions while the whole Church seeks to come to a common mind.

Those who for a variety of reasons cannot conscientiously accept that women may be ordained as priests will continue to hold a legitimate and recognised position within the Church of England.

The provision was therefore put in for a specific purpose - to allow for discernment. The Archbishop of York was very clear on that and that the whole thing wasn't a permanent arrangement.

quote:
“...if he reads the act of Synod carefully he will see that there is built into it a high degree of flexibility. The Archbishops say that they shall ordain from time to time and the ‘shall’ represents a commitment; ‘from time to time’ recognises that times may change. One has heard voices on one side saying, ‘We do not know what the future is.’ We have to live with those kinds of uncertainties. This is why we must not set proposals in concrete. We must make a commitment, give an assurance and go ahead in faith, not knowing what the future is going to bring.”
Archbishop of York July 1993

The Synod was clear about the purpose of Flying Bishops in the debate.
quote:
“Let us be absolutely sure that we are passing a pastoral act for pastoral purposes – a very different thing from passing legislation which could tie the church into further complications. I believe the act is needed for pastoral purposes and that we must vote for it, but we must be sure it is not legislation.”
Canon Ruth Wintle, General Synod July 1993 [p 690]

Both Archbishops were absolutely clear about the role of Flying Bishops - that it was supplementary to rather than an alternative to the pastoral oversight of the existing bishops.

quote:
“The arrangements the House envisages are designed to ensure that appropriate pastoral Episcopal care is provided for those in favour and those opposed to the legislation, without undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop.”
The Archbishop of Canterbury (George Carey) in the House of Lords 2 Nov1993

“..The visitors *PEVs+ are intended to provide an extended ministry in certain agreed places, working with and through the diocesan bishops concerned…
The importance of lending them out and placing them strategically is so that they can do some ordinary episcopal work and be part of a diocesan team..”
The Archbishop of York (John Habgood) to General Synod July 1993 [p674]

Lord Runcie was very clear about how monumental a concession was offered. A concession that even on the face of it was groundbreaking and threatened to violate the integrity of the Church of England all in the cause of bending over backwards to keep the sexists happy.
quote:
“The assurances, the special provisions, the extraordinary episcopal oversight are all judged necessary—I accept that—but nevertheless they are symptoms of an illness which replaces trust and good will with the flawed logic of two integrities. It is a sad paradox that those most fearful of one development in the life of the Church should be blind to their collusion with another which seems far more obviously illegitimate within that same spiritual life.”
Lord Runcie, to the House of Lords 2 Nov 1993

Even that wasn't enough for you guys. The offers on the table to keep you in were monumental. But those opposed to the Ordination of Women showed themselves to be happy to pervert this provision. Offered a mile you took about twenty. The flying bishops, intended to supplement the bishops where necessary but was put into practice as alternative episcopal oversight - very different from the intent of the process. Andrew Burnham, formerly Bishop of Ebbsfleet (and now a member of the Ordinariate) is very clear that he massively broke the terms of what was offered.

quote:
And the apologia I gave was that of the Apostolic District, which was the term in canon law to describe a group that is not yet a diocese but might become so and has an apostolic administrator. Of course an administration, a jurisdiction, was the one thing we weren’t. We didn’t have the legal authority to do any of it. But that was what we were in search of becoming.
Andrew Burnham, Catholic Herald 13 Jan 2011

The promises made were kept. But those on your side of the argument did not deal in good faith. You did not deal in good faith when setting up the flying bishops. You did not deal in good faith when you had flying bishops. You intentionally packed the house of Laity and voted against the will of the Church of England. And right now you appear to be proof texting like a group of creationists while having made provision that you would not remain, as mandated by the decision, under the care of your Diocesan Bishops.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
That's what Tom Robinson would have said once... [Razz]

ES, as someone who has spent most of my life in same sex relationships before recently entering into a heterosexual marriage, I'd like to say: FOAD. Seriously. Don't fucking use the existence of people like me to piss on the rights of our friends. Getting married to a member of the opposite sex doesn't mean we're on your side of the argument suddenly. If anything it's just made me more frustrated that the various kinds of privilege I enjoy as a married person aren't available to everyone.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops,1998
Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 called upon the “Provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, are both loyal Anglicans and to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest possible degree of communion, recognizing that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination and licensing.”

Specifically Carey promised the House of Lords:
quote:
Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject.
Lords debate

Now of course Anglican have always stretched the envelope; Evangelicals lose liturgy by using non-standard services, Papists use the Roman Missal, and libruls bless same sex relationships. It's what we Anglican do; to suggest +Andrew is a unique offender in this is silly. But the commitment to a 'permanent' place for the dissidents did emerge as a element in the post 1992 settlement. THIS WAS A MISTAKE. But we've got to live with it - or forever accept that our promises are valueless.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, you just gave me a light bulb moment. Biblical support for women bishops:

quote:
For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Goodness me, it's been sitting there in 1 Corinthians 11:10 all along.

Conversely, 3 verses earlier it's made perfectly clear that men absolutely should NOT be wearing hats in church like that.

Holy fuck, that was brilliant. [Overused]
Still, it only takes care of the fundies. Won't keep the sacramental mob happy.
Now ... How could we proof text for them ...
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops,1998
Resolution III.2 of the Lambeth Conference 1998 called upon the “Provinces of the Communion to affirm that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, are both loyal Anglicans and to make such provision, including appropriate Episcopal ministry, as will enable them to live in the highest possible degree of communion, recognizing that there is and should be no compulsion on any bishop in matters concerning ordination and licensing.”

Ah yes. Distorted Proof Text #1.

This was at the Lambeth Conference in 1998 - a conference that contains all the provinces of the Anglican Communion - of which some but not all ordain female priests and bishops. It was saying that because the CofE and TEC were ordaining female priests, TEC was ordaining female bishops, and I forget who still had a male only priesthood.

This therefore has nothing to d-o with what happens within a province, referring explicitely as it does to the relationship between provinces. Are you a province?

Now for the quotemining.

quote:
Specifically Carey promised the House of Lords:
quote:
Our intention is to give continued space within the Church of England to those of differing views on this subject.
Lords debate

And he did give continued space. So far you have had twenty years of space. Twenty years to determine whether the ordaining of female priests was a mistake and twenty years of space.

Further, if you would care to actually read rather than merely quotemine, you'd find that in the very speech you link, George Carey is explicit that at least some of the provisions in place are temporary and time limited rather than intended to last forever.
quote:
It was strongly argued in evidence to the Ecclesiastical Committee that Clause 2 should either be withdrawn or extended to cover future diocesan bishops. Left as it is, the argument went, priests opposed to the legislation would be unlikely to accept senior office in future. To make such an extension, however, would in effect be to legislate for the continued geographical separation of the Church of England into areas where women priests may operate and areas where they may not. The provision restricting Clause 2 to bishops in office when the canon comes into effect was included at the request of the majority of the House of Bishops in order to maintain the unity and collegiality of the episcopate.
That intention has been kept. It has been kept completely and in entirety. It is not carte blanche merely a statement of what the Church of England intends to do at that time - and your own link provides explicit evidence that this was a temporary arrangement. That you claim that something that was, even going by your own sources, intended to only be temporary, was a promise to do something permanent merely says things about either your honesty or your degree of wishful thinking.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
It's just possible that as a result of this, disestablishment could happen in a particularly shameful and embarrassing way - the State may decide it doesn't wish to be associated with the Church of England.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
That photo has, of course, dear old Sir Tony wearing a Garrick Club tie.

I wonder how many female members there are...

Thurible
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's just possible that as a result of this, disestablishment could happen in a particularly shameful and embarrassing way - the State may decide it doesn't wish to be associated with the Church of England.

Ironical (or perhaps not) that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, who represents the Church Commissioners in Parliament, appears to be wearing a Garrick Club tie.

The Garrick Club does not admit women as members.

X-post with Thurible.

[ 22. November 2012, 15:31: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I'm slightly perturbed by the number of Shipmates who can spot a Garrick Club tie at a distance.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That photo has, of course, dear old Sir Tony wearing a Garrick Club tie.

I wonder how many female members there are...

About as many as there female bishops in the CofE.

Which makes him an ideal parliamentary representative for the church. He probably wore the thing deliberately to make the point.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm slightly perturbed by the number of Shipmates who can spot a Garrick Club tie at a distance.

Only second hand, old chap.

Thurible
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
That photo has, of course, dear old Sir Tony wearing a Garrick Club tie.

I wonder how many female members there are...

About as many as there female bishops in the CofE.
And of course, the Garrick Club doesn't get to have its entire committee sitting in the Lords, doesn't get special tax breaks, and isn't tightly interwoven with the constitutional fabric of the country.
 
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :
 
And there probably aren't very many women who would want to join...
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
Thinking about this headship thread.

Why should I accept the authority of someone who thinks they shouldn't have authority over me? Why is it consistent for a woman who rejects the headship of women in an organisation to be in its legislative assembly?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Ah well, testicles are go, then, eh? At least for the servants of the servants. What a rum do.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If people want to argue that there is a RELEVANT difference between men and women such that women are not suited to senior leadership in the church, then I'm all ears (although frankly it'd be much easier, as a matter of logic, to argue that they're not suited for the priesthood, rather than have the odd halfway position that currently exists).

This is important. The idea that one can have female priests, but not female bishops, is entirely ridiculous. At best that is clinging to tradition emptied of meaning, at worst that is indeed sexism. The argument and tradition was lost with the first female ordination, now there is not a shred of theology or other reason that could support opposition to female bishops.

I oppose female ordination in the RCC, of course. However, I support the ordination of female bishops in the Anglican church. The ordination of female priests was an Anglican statement about the nature of the priesthood, whether that was intentional or not. Given this statement, it is a matter of justice that women can also become Anglican bishops, in just the same sense that they can become Anglican priests.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The fundamental problem I have with the assertion that God has decreed that men can perform a task and women can't is that no-one ever goes on to explain WHY God might have done this. And the God I believe in usually does things for sensible reasons, or at least some kind of reason. I don't hold with the idea that God is generally ineffable or capricious. So I expect some kind of attempt, at least, at articulating what it is about men that God prefers in this area.

Sexual symbolism is the core issue here, and it is consistent, coherent and effable. This is not Dead Horses, so I will just provide some links: If you want to read a brief and soft-spoken argument, here's C.S. Lewis, if you want a discussion at length and with plenty of fighting words, here's Peter Kreeft.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
There's an article in the i today by Susie Leafe, called "Why I voted no to women bishops."
I read it at lunchtime, and I'm still fuming.
She "believe(s) that it was a vote for a positive future for the Church of England" - and just to show what a weird parallel universe she lives in, she goes on to say:
"Voting no was a vote for unity in the church and we are now in a strong position to work towards better legislation that will enable women to become bishops and all traditions in the Church to flourish.
"Voting no was a vote against discrimination....
"Voting no was a vote for equality in the Church...."
And then she goes on about how bishops are the fathers in a family - and mothers have a different role to play.

I see her reasoning - and I think it's wronger than a wrong thing that is wrong.
And if there was a membership card for the CofE, I'd have torn it up on Tuesday night. While there is a significant minority in the CofE who think like this, and are able to impose their views on the majority, there is no place for me there.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
The last thing we need though, Eigon, is for people who feel like that to leave. Then the mysogynists have won and the possiblity of women bishops being approved in the future even a more distant reality.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Ms Leafe is now far better known than she was just a day ago.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
The Purgatory thread on Susie Leafe has just been sent to Dead Horses.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ms Leafe is now far better known than she was just a day ago.

I think, rather, that the word you are looking for is "notorious".
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
...if there was a membership card for the CofE, I'd have torn it up on Tuesday night...

I have friends who have said that they are doing this as as result of Tuesday's vote. That is, leaving to go to another church, where women are welcome in all roles.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
...if there was a membership card for the CofE, I'd have torn it up on Tuesday night...

I have friends who have said that they are doing this as as result of Tuesday's vote. That is, leaving to go to another church, where women are welcome in all roles.
There have been several times in the past few years when I've wondered if I can in good conscience continue publicly to represent this increasingly shameful organisation; but never more so than the last couple of days.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Goodness. People have been saying to me that liberals in the Church were just as bad as the conservatives. To be honest I never really believed it, but seeing the reactions on the Ship over a mere postponement of the inevitable is sure opening my eyes.

My, do you have an education to come. Their rage and cries of betrayal are worse then the Bennites at the 1980 Labour Conference [Razz]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
The last thing we need though, Eigon, is for people who feel like that to leave. Then the mysogynists have won and the possiblity of women bishops being approved in the future even a more distant reality.

I agree - though that is also said to gay people and any chance of change is diddly squat.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Please see my post above.

Because, yeah, pretty much when I was growing up, the only time one heard the phrase (outside of an insurance office [Roll Eyes] ) was in the context of a bad joke.

Would you consider 'woman doctor' and 'woman bishop' to be disparaging also?



Please re-read the post you just quoted. The phrase "Woman driver" was, for a long time, used in a disparaging way, quite commonly. It was in the same category as "throws like a girl" and " stop acting like an old woman."

SO you asking me about the word "woman " used in other examples completely ignores what I said.

quote:
In my dialect, 'woman doctor' is not disparaging
Good.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Kelly Alves

I'm not sure how I am ignoring your point about 'women drivers', which I get, is for you sexist. It's because of that, that I am curious about other constructions with 'woman' or 'women' in them, and whether people find them objectionable. In fact, it's possible that they will die out completely, being replaced by 'female', or of course, zero.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kelly Alves

I'm not sure how I am ignoring your point about 'women drivers', which I get, is for you sexist.

The fact that you got that absolutely did not come across.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sexual symbolism is the core issue here, and it is consistent, coherent and effable. This is not Dead Horses, so I will just provide some links: If you want to read a brief and soft-spoken argument, here's C.S. Lewis, if you want a discussion at length and with plenty of fighting words, here's Peter Kreeft.

Thanks.

CS Lewis boils down to (1) God being male, or God having taught us to think of him as male, and (2) a priest representing God. The other one's a bit lengthy, but I can see just from those headings that (1) is at least present.

I wish Lewis had unpacked the representative idea a bit more. Because how much is a representative of anyone required to be LIKE the person they're representing? Should all current ambassadors of the United States be of partial African descent?

It's not at ALL obvious to me that, assuming for the sake of argument God does indeed have some kind of maleness to him (a big issue in itself), that means that his representatives must similarly have some maleness to them in order to be representative. Because the reps clearly aren't going to be the same as God. For starters, off the top of my head, they're mortal and sinful. So if being mortal is okay and being sinful is okay, it's not immediately obvious that being female is a bridge too far in terms of differences from the being you're representing.

It's effectively an argument that God's maleness is MORE an essential characteristic of God than other things like him being immortal and perfect.

[EDIT: I'm going to move this part of the conversation to DH when I get the time. Something along the lines of "Men representing God".]

[ 22. November 2012, 22:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
But we are also told we are created in the image of God, so for a woman to be created in the image of God must mean that gender is not the salient part of the image ?

(That or we are the image of him playing dress-up.)
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Exactly, DT.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kelly Alves

I'm not sure how I am ignoring your point about 'women drivers', which I get, is for you sexist.

The fact that you got that absolutely did not come across.
The clue is in the word 'also'. Thus, when I said, 'do you find 'woman doctor' disparaging also?', the 'also' means that I got that you found 'women drivers' disparaging. What else would 'also' mean?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
[brick wall]

Who will rid me of this troublesome lexicographer?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(I'm telling you, orfeo. )

Let me put it another way-- your minimalist approach to conveying understanding and your exhaustive approach to reveling in pedantry gives me a knee- jerk judgement of your priorities.

[ 22. November 2012, 21:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Man flu?

I'll see your man flu and raise you boy scout/girl guide.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(I'm telling you, orfeo. )

Let me put it another way-- your minimalist approach to conveying understanding and your exhaustive approach to reveling in pedantry gives me a knee- jerk judgement of your priorities.

Wait, the first 'you' is for me now, but are the 'yours' for quetzalcoatl, or still me?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Okay man/men/males/boys and woman/women/females/girls, we get it. The English language is not susceptible to the same consistency and rigour as double entry bookkeeping. In other news, the Pope is Catholic and I just heard about a large furry creature making a manure deposit.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Just to clarify the parenthesis was an aside to you the rest was to Big Bird.)
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly, DT.

Hardly. But this is still not DH.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I've started the Dead Horses thread for that discussion, IngoB, so you need not suffer the constraints any longer. But of course, over there we have to play nice.

Meanwhile, over here everyone can get back to accusing each other of being unprincipled irrational bigots who abandon traditions and break promises and exercise bad faith and steal from the collection plate, etc etc.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Don't forget sniping about how organized religion is intrinsically shitty! I like that part.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There have been several times in the past few years when I've wondered if I can in good conscience continue publicly to represent this increasingly shameful organisation; but never more so than the last couple of days.

This is understandable as an initial reaction but at the risk of being 'pollyanna-ish' the key thing to remember is that the vote in favour of women bishops was overwhelming. Some kind of deal will be struck. All that is needed is a small concession to get back those six lay votes. We'll see a solution in a matter of months rather than years. And I predict a final approval vote in favour of women bishops in the next two years.

As far as 'promises' are concerned, both sides have a point. This is a pretty good summary of the evidence as far as synodical debates are concerned. Those who believe there was a promise rely on the Manchester Statement; the House of Bishops 'Bonds of Peace' document which accompanied the Act of Synod; the lifting of the sunset clause in the main measure; evidence given to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament and the Lambeth Conference resolution which assured both parties that they are 'loyal Anglicans'.

The language is of two 'integrities' and 'open reception' which has now fallen out of fashion. The promises in Synod were to provide space. The promises to the Ecclesiastical Committee were to assure them that an Act of Synod had a weighty and moral influence for the long term. Professor David McClean probably went beyond his brief when he talked about no rescinding of the Act of Synod. The language from the Archbishop was that the provisions contained in the Act of Synod were for as long as they were needed.

Those who argue that promises have not been broken also have a point. Synods cannot bind their successors, neither can Archbishops and bishops. Rosalind Rutherford seems to concede that there was a promise to provide space for opponents, though she strongly argues that the Act of Synod resulted in a church within a church which was never envisaged. In her view, any concession to opponents is an attempt to keep the vague promises which were made.

There is also the argument that the ordination of women bishops is a game changer. It closes the period of 'open reception'. Both opponents and proponents have at various times conceded this point.

My personal view is that there were promises. The promises are mostly implied rather than explicit. Nevertheless, the promises can only be regarded as general reassurances to make space. These promises are circumscribed by a commitment not to create a church within a church, or to fundamentally alter the episcopate.

Sorry for an overly long and un-hellish post.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
This is understandable as an initial reaction but at the risk of being 'pollyanna-ish' the key thing to remember is that the vote in favour of women bishops was overwhelming. Some kind of deal will be struck. All that is needed is a small concession to get back those six lay votes. We'll see a solution in a matter of months rather than years. And I predict a final approval vote in favour of women bishops in the next two years.

Knowing a number of those, in the Houses of Clergy and Laity, who voted 'no' on Tuesday, this was exactly what they wre voting for.

Had the measure gone for Final Approval in the form it had earlier in the year (was it "Canon 5.1c?), there would have been a number of abstentions, yes, but also more 'yes' votes.

Thurible
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The problem with any deal is that it's never going to be enough. Those who saw that the provision given in the Act of Synod as meaning a church within a church and saw it as permanent fixture are not going to accept anything less. Their actions showed that they either believed in a permanent church within a church or that women priests were a temporary blip, otherwise why would they continue ordaining men who did not believe women can be priests within this body? That is what has perpetuated this temporary provision.

The only thing that's going to be enough is a church within a church. And I don't think that's possible, partiularly while meeting the Sex Discrimination legislation.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with any deal is that it's never going to be enough. Those who saw that the provision given in the Act of Synod as meaning a church within a church and saw it as permanent fixture are not going to accept anything less. Their actions showed that they either believed in a permanent church within a church or that women priests were a temporary blip, otherwise why would they continue ordaining men who did not believe women can be priests within this body? That is what has perpetuated this temporary provision.

The only thing that's going to be enough is a church within a church. And I don't think that's possible, partiularly while meeting the Sex Discrimination legislation.

No, I don't think this is true. It's clear that there's less than a third in the House of Laity who oppose ordination of women. Those six votes (and more) were effectively people who supported women bishops but wanted further provision. Thurible is right that the legislation proposed by the House of Bishops last summer would probably have gained 'Final Approval' because there would have been more abstentions (that certainly didn't create a church within a church).

The main obstacle now is whether Watch will accept any concessions at all. There's some worry that they're expecting Parliament to come riding to the rescue. This is as unhealthy as the erastianism conveniently adopted by traditionalists back in 1992 and 1993. My view is that Parliament will moan and winge about the church but won't and can't interfere. Their self-righteous debate the other day was ridiculous. Tony Baldry even implied that the Church of England was now a 'sect' - is the RC Church a sect which will not even debate ordination of women? Bloody ridiculous.

For all their criticism of the church, MPs hardly carry any moral authority themselves.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I do see your point, Chorister - the more people who believe in women becoming bishops who leave means more people opposed to women bishops who are left. On the other hand, I've had enough of it, and I'd rather go somewhere else, or not go anywhere at all.
I've been following the whole struggle over women's ordination since I was about 14, and the wife of the Bishop of Manchester climbed up to the pulpit during a service in Manchester Cathedral and said she was leaving until the C of E ordained women priests.
I was delighted when women's ordination was approved, and I've known several women who became priests.
I was almost equally delighted when I heard of the first woman bishop in the US - Barbara Harris, was it? And I thought it was only a matter of time before it happened here.
And now this.
I mean, for heaven's sake, there's even a woman bishop in Swaziland!
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Those who believe there was a promise rely on the Manchester Statement;

For those of you playing along at home, I've been debunking most of these so-called promises - all the ones I've actually seen the text of are either inherently time-limited or a matter of nothing more than wishful thinking on behalf of the people claiming there was a promise. The Manchester Statement (courtesy of Forward in Faith).

quote:
˜We now enter a process in which it is desirable that both those in favour and those opposed should be recognised as holding legitimate positions while the whole Church seeks to come to a common mind. The Church of England needs to understand itself as a communion in dialogue, committed to remaining together in the ongoing process of the discernment of truth within the wider fellowship of the Christian Church. Giving space to each other and remaining in the highest possible degree of communion in spite of differences are crucial, as we strive to be open to the insights of the wider Christian community.
In short there will be time granted to try to come to a consensus. This does not say there will be an indefinite amount of time, merely that there will be time and an attempt to come to a complete consensus.

Verdict: Promise Kept.

quote:
the House of Bishops 'Bonds of Peace' document which accompanied the Act of Synod;
As I understand it from the FiF website that was the Manchester Statement. I've been unable to find the full text of Bonds of Peace.

quote:
the lifting of the sunset clause in the main measure;
Which isn't the same as saying it will last forever. It's saying it will take as long as it takes.

Verdict: Wishful Thinking.

quote:
evidence given to the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament
Bean has already provided a link to this - the evidence given is all in Hansard. And the evidence doesn't give any actual promises.

Verdict: Wishful Thinking.

quote:
and the Lambeth Conference resolution which assured both parties that they are 'loyal Anglicans'.
And this isn't a promise. This isn't given to any people. It is a matter of keeping peace between provinces as I have cited earlier.

Verdict: Wishful Thinking.

quote:
The language is of two 'integrities' and 'open reception' which has now fallen out of fashion. The promises in Synod were to provide space.
And they did so. They did so for twenty years.

Verdict: Promise Kept.

quote:
The language from the Archbishop was that the provisions contained in the Act of Synod were for as long as they were needed.
The question is how long they are needed - and when they start doing harm. With 42 out of 44 diocese showing the will of the Laity, a 75% majority of the House of Priests, and a >90% majority of Bishops, the consensus is clearly reached.

Verdict: Wishful Thinking.

Not one of the documents I have been able to track down indicates that there was a promise to do more than has already been done. I admit I haven't read Bonds of Peace - but if there was an actual killing quote in there I am absolutely certain that Forward in Faith, Enders' Shadow, leo, and others would be trumpeting it from the rooftops rather than relying on excessively generous interpretations of nebulous statements to create a drumbeat repitition of "Promises were made and should be kept" until people believe it (and none are more likely to believe it than those who wish it was true). Even Nick Clegg has a better idea of what a promise is than that.

Space has been made for twenty years - which is a complete fulfillment of the actual promises made. And the leaders of those opposed to female priests have not dealt in good faith, trying to create their own sees (such as Ebbsfleet) rather than provide additional pastoral care - and claiming things were promised which, when you look at the actual documents, never actually were. The wishful thinking into promises may not be dealing with bad faith, the way the flying bishops exceeded their mandate by a ridiculous amount certainly was.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There's some worry that they're expecting Parliament to come riding to the rescue. This is as unhealthy as the erastianism conveniently adopted by traditionalists back in 1992 and 1993. My view is that Parliament will moan and winge about the church but won't and can't interfere. Their self-righteous debate the other day was ridiculous. Tony Baldry even implied that the Church of England was now a 'sect' - is the RC Church a sect which will not even debate ordination of women? Bloody ridiculous.

quote:
"I am a freemason, as the House knows. My purpose in initiating this debate is not, however, to defend freemasons or freemasonry; with my knowledge of freemasonry, I hope rather that I can assist the House and persuade the Home Secretary—and, indeed, the Government as a whole—to reconsider their proposals on freemasons.

I fully accept that some people find freemasonry slightly ridiculous. That is a matter for them, but if I and thousands of other men choose to be ridiculous in private, that is surely a matter for us. On other matters, I regularly get down on my knees and pray to a trinitarian God. I proclaim a creed that asserts baptism for the remission of sins and life after death. Some people believe in transubstantiation—that the bread and wine actually turn into the body and blood of our Lord.

Again, I suspect some people find some or all of those ideas ridiculous. Whether I believe them is a matter for me.


The state has no business seeking to build windows into men's souls".

Tony Baldry (Hansard 06/05/98)

Thurible
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Jusinian, you really are a tiresome arsehole. Why argue with my post in which I clearly say that the promise is to maintain space. In other words, we are in broad agreement. Nevertheless, even if they're wrong, it's undeniable that 'assurances' were given. You're just getting hung up on whether those 'assurances' should ever have been understood as 'promises' by those involved. Well, you're not going to change anyone's mind about that.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:

The main obstacle now is whether Watch will accept any concessions at all. There's some worry that they're expecting Parliament to come riding to the rescue. This is as unhealthy as the erastianism conveniently adopted by traditionalists back in 1992 and 1993. My view is that Parliament will moan and winge about the church but won't and can't interfere. Their self-righteous debate the other day was ridiculous. Tony Baldry even implied that the Church of England was now a 'sect' - is the RC Church a sect which will not even debate ordination of women? Bloody ridiculous.

For all their criticism of the church, MPs hardly carry any moral authority themselves.

[Overused] Second time in ten minutes I've agreed with Spawn! Definitely a record.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Jusinian, you really are a tiresome arsehole. Why argue with my post in which I clearly say that the promise is to maintain space. In other words, we are in broad agreement. Nevertheless, even if they're wrong, it's undeniable that 'assurances' were given. You're just getting hung up on whether those 'assurances' should ever have been understood as 'promises' by those involved. Well, you're not going to change anyone's mind about that.

Spawn, I notice you have nothing to say but half-truths based on not actually reading, as usual. And as usual you seem to object that people care about facts, considering this tiresome.

Assurances that space would be given were indeed made. Space was given for twenty years. No assurances were made that space would be given indefinitely - and indeed with the ban on new bishops opposing the ordination of women it is impossible to do so so any reading that that assurance was given is delusional.

My claim is that the assurances made have been fulfilled - as indeed by my reading they have. Apparently you are too illiterate to have read my actual post which says things like "Verdict: Promise Kept". Because had you done so you would realise that it was impossible to write that without there being some acknowledgement that some assurances were made.

And the real problem with MPs criticising the CofE is that they don't have much moral authority themselves. When the Church of England is in such a pickle that the politicians can freely criticise it as immoral you've got serious problems. Especially as the Church lives or dies on its moral authority. It shows the level the CofE has brought itself to that it currently has no more moral authority than politicians do.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
[Overused] Second time in ten minutes I've agreed with Spawn! Definitely a record.

Welcome to the dark side. [Devil]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
Okay, Justinian, I'll withdraw the adjective. And I'll just point out that you're guilty of not reading my posts.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Assurances that space would be given were indeed made. Space was given for twenty years. No assurances were made that space would be given indefinitely - and indeed with the ban on new bishops opposing the ordination of women it is impossible to do so so any reading that that assurance was given is delusional.

I still can't believe you're arguing with me. I said, for example, that no 'promises' could be binding on successors.

quote:
My claim is that the assurances made have been fulfilled - as indeed by my reading they have. Apparently you are too illiterate to have read my actual post which says things like "Verdict: Promise Kept". Because had you done so you would realise that it was impossible to write that without there being some acknowledgement that some assurances were made.
You didn't read my post. We aren't actually in any kind of major disagreement. But you don't deal with issues by a partial and simplistic 'verdict' of this kind. A small group of people understand those assurances as a promise to them - undergirded with the language of 'two integrities' and 'open reception'. My view is that the assurances lasted up until women bishops which is a game changer. Now new reassurances are needed.

quote:
And the real problem with MPs criticising the CofE is that they don't have much moral authority themselves.
Is there an echo? I just said that.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No assurances were made that space would be given indefinitely - and indeed with the ban on new bishops opposing the ordination of women it is impossible to do so so any reading that that assurance was given is delusional.

Sorry to triple-post. This needs correcting because Justinian hasn't read the sources properly. There was no ban on 'new bishops opposing the ordination of women'. There was a 'clause' which allowed existing bishops the power to say no to any women priests in their dioceses, but future-appointed bishops could not do this. As it was, because of the London Plan and the Act of Synod, no existing bishops took advantage of this power and as a result there were no 'no-go' dioceses for women priests.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Jusinian, you really are a tiresome arsehole. Why argue with my post in which I clearly say that the promise is to maintain space. In other words, we are in broad agreement. Nevertheless, even if they're wrong, it's undeniable that 'assurances' were given. You're just getting hung up on whether those 'assurances' should ever have been understood as 'promises' by those involved. Well, you're not going to change anyone's mind about that.

[my italics]

Yippee! A genuinely Hellish comment!

This thread, like many which are opened in Hell is getting too courteous by far. There are two threads in Purgatory plus three in Dead Horses for reasonable debate on this and related topics.

Please Keep Hell Hellish™.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Spawn, thank you for being pollyanna. But the question of whether I want to be a member of the CofE is only partly about the actual vote on Tuesday. It's also partly about whether I want to be a member of the same organisation as people like Giddings and Leafe. Right now I would rather call Entamoeba histolytica* my brother/sister in Christ than either of those two.


(* The organism that causes amoebic dysentery)
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Spawn, thank you for being pollyanna. But the question of whether I want to be a member of the CofE is only partly about the actual vote on Tuesday. It's also partly about whether I want to be a member of the same organisation as people like Giddings and Leafe. Right now I would rather call Entamoeba histolytica* my brother/sister in Christ than either of those two.


(* The organism that causes amoebic dysentery)

I've suffered from amoebic dysentery, so I quite sympathise. But what's so different now? From your perspective, you have to live in the same church as Giddings and Leafe, but 20 years ago you had to live in the same church as Tony Higton and Margaret Brown. In the cold light of day, there's plenty of jerks I don't want to have any association to. If Giles Fraser wasn't a friend (of sorts) I'd be tempted to take the same view of him. If I was an atheist, I'd be embarrassed by Dawkins. As someone who earns part of my living from journalism, I'm mortified by press wrong-doing - and even more conflicted in that I remain friends with a couple of wrongdoers.

But surely, you are long enough in the tooth to know that you can't tie humanity down to how they view two or three issues. People are more than that. Even arseholes like Justinian.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Cf SS, oh, Adeodatus, get a grip, you liberal scumbag.

I've only met Giddings once and expected to find him repellant. In all fairness, though, he was lovely. Very much a surprise.

I think this is key, actually. The Better Together campaign (the ecclesiastical one rather than the anti-independence one) arises from the genuine hope of those "traditional Anglo-Catholics" who remain to remain together because we genuinely think that we are better that way. The great smorgasbord that is the Church of England is something we value greatly.

Fr Jonathan Beswick, who spoke on Tuesday against the legislation, wrote to the Torygraph some while ago now and said the following:

quote:
Members of the Church of England hold seemingly irreconcilable views on the issue of the consecration of women. Some are pushing hard for a solution they believe would end discrimination against women. Others resist, saying that it is not discrimination but religious conviction, and that they will soon be discriminated against because of their beliefs.

Ours is a broad Church, here to serve the people of this country. Both clergy and laity can be faithful members while holding divergent views on salvation, the authority of scripture, the Eucharist, the bodily resurrection and many other topics. There is a real danger that women in the episcopacy will become the only issue on which diversity is not tolerated.

Let us not become a narrow Church by making the consecration of women a "test act" for the 21st century.

Whilst I find some of the views of my brethren and sistren in the Lord who are working out their salvation within the CofE really quite odd (and, in some cases, downright wrong), I value the fact that we are together and hope and pray that we can remain so.

So there, you liberal so-and-so.

Thurible
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I've only met Giddings once and expected to find him repellant. In all fairness, though, he was lovely. Very much a surprise.

I don't care whether I'd find him lovely. He bloody wouldn't find me lovely.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
But what's so different now? From your perspective, you have to live in the same church as Giddings and Leafe, but 20 years ago you had to live in the same church as Tony Higton and Margaret Brown.

The point of the "last straw" is that it is a straw, not a three-ton weight.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
(Quoting Fr Jonathan Beswick)
quote:
Others resist, saying that it is not discrimination but religious conviction

Fr Beswick is simply wrong. Discrimination based on religious beliefs is still discrimination. You don't get to treat others as second class citizens just because your religion says it's OK.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Laypeople aren't inferior to clergy, you know.

Thurible
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Thurible, I'm another liberal catholic gone over this decision, after lifetime involvement in the CofE, 5 years of massive involvement in a previous church and 15 in this one. It's not just women bishops, it's SSM and the local church too. There's no point hanging on in the CofE. The local church is crap and there are too many things of the main church for which I say "not in my name". And as a liberal catholic there is nowhere else to go.

And to add insult to injury I've had real abuse from one of my loopy neighbours over the last few days for being a part of a decision I don't agree with. To the point I was threatening calling the police.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
But what's so different now? From your perspective, you have to live in the same church as Giddings and Leafe, but 20 years ago you had to live in the same church as Tony Higton and Margaret Brown.

The point of the "last straw" is that it is a straw, not a three-ton weight.
Sorry Adeodatus to carry this on, because I realise, in your case, your straw might be a much more complex than what I'm going to go on and say about the general atmosphere.

All this flouncing around about the Synod vote and people threatening to leave is really rather ironic. There's no self-awareness that threats to leave by the other side have led to angry accusations of emotional blackmail. The same goes for attempts to enlist Parliamentarians to get your own way. Everyone's so busy playing victim that they don't see that they've become what they profess to loathe - small-minded, narrow and bigoted.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
There's no self-awareness that threats to leave by the other side have led to angry accusations of emotional blackmail.

Indeed. And, when people left in 1992/1994, some of those who rejoiced in Synod's vote (won by only two votes in the House of Laity, lest we forget) talked of throwing toys out of prams, doors not hitting on the way out, and other such supportive stuff.

Thurible
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Laypeople aren't inferior to clergy, you know.

Clergy are the ones who are in charge, be it of a parish or a diocese. They are the bosses, the leaders, the top brass. They're the ones who are quite literally at the front every Sunday, and who the church teaches we cannot receive the sacraments without. They get paid to be Christians, we have to pay. When you get to the level of bishop, they're the ones who get to live rent-free in big mansions at our expense.

Whichever way you spin it, that sounds pretty superior to me.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Spawn, I really couldn't give a toss about the general atmosphere. Nor about those (to my mind) wrong-headed people who are looking for a reversal of the vote by Parliament. I'm just tired of year after year, decade after decade, of being embarrassed by an institution that I necessarily - because of the office I hold - publicly represent. I'm tired of having to try to explain the CofE. I'm tired of having to apologise for it. I'm tired of that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see the word "Church" in a headline and think "oh fuck, what now?"

Some years ago, a friend of mine resigned from the clergy for similar reasons. At the time, he said something to the effect of "You realise that you've spent every day of your life banging your head against a brick wall. Then you realise that either you can carry on doing that, knowing you'll never knock the wall down, or you can turn around and walk away." That is a very good description of how I feel this week.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They get paid to be Christians, we have to pay.

So, they're our employees. And yet also our Fathers in God. Topsy turvy nature of God's Kingdom and all that.

They are not, though, superior.

Thurible
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Spawn, I really couldn't give a toss about the general atmosphere. Nor about those (to my mind) wrong-headed people who are looking for a reversal of the vote by Parliament. I'm just tired of year after year, decade after decade, of being embarrassed by an institution that I necessarily - because of the office I hold - publicly represent. I'm tired of having to try to explain the CofE. I'm tired of having to apologise for it. I'm tired of that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see the word "Church" in a headline and think "oh fuck, what now?"

This isn't going to sound terribly sympathetic but when did you realise that being in a broad and comprehensive church wasn't for you? You need to find something pure and narrow.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
So, they're our employees.

So if I'm their employer shouldn't I get to tell them what to do every Sunday rather than the other way around?

quote:
And yet also our Fathers in God. ...

They are not, though, superior.

Sounds contradictory to me.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Not contradictory but, rather, reflecting the topsy turvy nature of the Kingdom.

Firms hire advisers. The advisers are not superior.

Thurible
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
... when did you realise that being in a broad and comprehensive church wasn't for you?...

You're kidding, right? Broad and comprehensive? Where about 40% of the priesthood have just been told that whatever spiritual gifts they might have to exercise in the vocation to episcopacy, they're not wanted?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Laypeople aren't inferior to clergy, you know.

Thurible

A-farkin-men.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
... when did you realise that being in a broad and comprehensive church wasn't for you?...

You're kidding, right? Broad and comprehensive? Where about 40% of the priesthood have just been told that whatever spiritual gifts they might have to exercise in the vocation to episcopacy, they're not wanted?
What planet are you living on?

That is 40 per cent of clergy - an almost unimaginable figure 20 years ago. That's one point in favour of being broad and comprehensive. The other point is that we didn't just tell the minority opposed to women's ordination to get lost.

You seem to want to be in a church of the likeminded.

[ 23. November 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The other point is that we didn't just tell the minority opposed to women's ordination to get lost.

Much to Marvin and Sir-Tony-the-Freemason's chagrin.

Thurible
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
You seem to want to be in a church of the likeminded.

No, only one of which I'm not ashamed.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Firms hire advisers. The advisers are not superior.

So clergy are merely advisors, hired by the laity to provide ideas that we can then follow or not according to our own whim? They have no extra status, jurisdiction or superiority, either in the church or the Kingdom, whatsoever? A bishop - nay, an archbishop - has no greater right or capacity to teach or speak on behalf of the church than the lowliest serf in the smallest congregation? They have no more right or authority to chastise those they perceive as being sinful than I have? They have no more ability or power to mediate between God and humanity than I have? They are not better than or superior to me in any way, shape or form?

They do not have the power to forgive (or refuse to forgive) sins, or to determine what acts of penance should be carried out? They are not the sole agents through whom the eucharist can be provided to the people, and without whom we cannot perform that most vital of Christian acts of worship? They do not have the automatic and incontestable right to sit as chairmen of every important committee in the church, from PCCs to Synod itself?

They are not, to segue into Biblical language, the shepherds and we their flock (in which case what the hell does the crook bishops carry symbolise?)?

Well, that's news to me.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Who said we're looking for a church of the like minded? I'm saying I can't be a part of any religion any more. Dechurched. Part of the 90% that are not part of any religion.

And for me that's partly being driven out of my local church by people who only want one form of churchmanship and theology.

[ 23. November 2012, 15:17: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Suck it up.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Spawn, I really couldn't give a toss about the general atmosphere. Nor about those (to my mind) wrong-headed people who are looking for a reversal of the vote by Parliament. I'm just tired of year after year, decade after decade, of being embarrassed by an institution that I necessarily - because of the office I hold - publicly represent. I'm tired of having to try to explain the CofE. I'm tired of having to apologise for it. I'm tired of that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see the word "Church" in a headline and think "oh fuck, what now?"

Some years ago, a friend of mine resigned from the clergy for similar reasons. At the time, he said something to the effect of "You realise that you've spent every day of your life banging your head against a brick wall. Then you realise that either you can carry on doing that, knowing you'll never knock the wall down, or you can turn around and walk away." That is a very good description of how I feel this week.

Ditto.

For the past few days, I have been debilitated by feelings of deep depression. What is the point of all my efforts, if at every step of the way, the C of E makes itself (and me, by association) to be a bigoted and reactionary institution incapable of living in the 21st Century? How can I continue to be a representative of an organisation that even my own children regard as a particularly unfunny joke?

If I could walk away, I would have done so this week. But I can't. Where would we live? And what kind of job could I get at my stage in life? Stacking shelves in Sainsburys? Actually - even that sounds rather tempting.

And what depresses me more than anything is the knowledge that this farago will now drag on for months, if not years. The thought that in six months time nothing will have changed is paralysing me.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTE]So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?

No.

Anyone asking you the question and getting that response will wonder how on earth you can stay in any kind of connection with said institution if that's how strongly you feel about a prevailing attitude.

Arguments about pensions, housing, mates still inside etc will just be seen as excuses. People are not concerned about laity, bishops, synods, 2/3 rds or whatever - as far as they are concerned (rightly or wrongly) the church has rejected women (they don't see it generally as "just" women bishops).

No matter what anyone says, unless someone actually does something/makes a stand - now - all the words come to nothing. Your guilt will be assumed simply by your association.

Unfortunately it's not just the cofe that is being maligned: I've come across more than a few (wrong) assumptions that the vote represents a universal position across all the churches. Thanks a bunch!

[ 23. November 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Firms hire advisers. The advisers are not superior.

So clergy are merely advisors, hired by the laity to provide ideas that we can then follow or not according to our own whim? They have no extra status, jurisdiction or superiority, either in the church or the Kingdom, whatsoever? A bishop - nay, an archbishop - has no greater right or capacity to teach or speak on behalf of the church than the lowliest serf in the smallest congregation? They have no more right or authority to chastise those they perceive as being sinful than I have? They have no more ability or power to mediate between God and humanity than I have? They are not better than or superior to me in any way, shape or form?

They do not have the power to forgive (or refuse to forgive) sins, or to determine what acts of penance should be carried out? They are not the sole agents through whom the eucharist can be provided to the people, and without whom we cannot perform that most vital of Christian acts of worship? They do not have the automatic and incontestable right to sit as chairmen of every important committee in the church, from PCCs to Synod itself?

They are not, to segue into Biblical language, the shepherds and we their flock (in which case what the hell does the crook bishops carry symbolise?)?

Well, that's news to me.

God chooses the foolish things of this world to shame the wise. As you might expect, from my POV and from my "theology" - no, there is no automatic right nor power in "leadership."

In fact, if you have to rely on "position or status" to lead or get anything done then that is wrong from the start.

[ 23. November 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE] .... the lowliest serf in the smallest congregation?

Whoa! Hang on a minute .... it's one thing insulting people on here, it's another to do it to people who have no hope of defending themselves.

FWIW over the years I've heard a lot better theology from "ordinary" churchgoers than from bishops and archbishops. I've also seen real Christian values lived out by those you clearly affect to despise - far more so the smug and comfortable in their nice palaces. I don't see them on the soup run unless they want a bit of pulicity.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
Well, we have said to us these days that the laity need to be more prominient. A Lay Led Church. Now we have it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Well, we have said to us these days that the laity need to be more prominient. A Lay Led Church. Now we have it.

It's hard to describe the laity as leading anything when they are more divided than the other two houses. Alternatively, you could consider the House of Laity's position to be static and you can't lead with your heels dug in.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And for me that's partly being driven out of my local church by people who only want one form of churchmanship and theology.

It sounds to me as though you only want one form of churchmanship and theology.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
FOAD Spike.

What's driven me out the evangelical cadre who are using the CofE as the best boat to fish from as they make sure they "properly teach" a Biblical fundamentalism that includes PSA and YEC, no evolution, born again Christianity, believers baptism only, paedobaptism is totally unacceptable it's social Christianity.

Oh yes, compulsory use of the NIV. There are only 66 books in the bible. Anything else is heresy. Books from the Apocrypha must not be read in Church.

Catholics aren't Christian. Saints, stained glass and liturgical observance are Popery. Lenten observance is to be mocked and sabotaged.

Oh yes, and dissenting voices of any of this need to be sidelined and shut up.

[ 23. November 2012, 16:59: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
FOAD Spike.

What's driven me out the evangelical cadre who are using the CofE as the best boat to fish from as they make sure they "properly teach" a Biblical fundamentalism that includes PSA and YEC, no evolution, born again Christianity, believers baptism only, paedobaptism is totally unacceptable it's social Christianity.

Oh yes, compulsory use of the NIV. There are only 66 books in the bible. Anything else is heresy. Books from the Apocrypha must not be read in Church.

Catholics aren't Christian. Saints, stained glass and liturgical observance are Popery. Lenten observance is to be mocked and sabotaged.

Oh yes, and dissenting voices of any of this need to be sidelined and shut up.

Oh you've found some liberal Evangelicals then? After all, they use the NIV, not the AV... [Biased] However I note that like all good liberals, they are very negative about things that REALLY AREN'T ACCEPTABLE. It's just that their choices as to what isn't acceptable aren't yours. Try proposing no women in orders in some CofE churches.

Yeah, if that your local Anglican shack, then I don't blame you for leaving it, because that is a near the end of one of the spectra in the CofE. However given the nature of the CofE, there'll almost certainly be something fairly different not THAT far away.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
FOAD Spike.

What's driven me out the evangelical cadre who are using the CofE as the best boat to fish from as they make sure they "properly teach" a Biblical fundamentalism that includes PSA and YEC, no evolution, born again Christianity, believers baptism only, paedobaptism is totally unacceptable it's social Christianity.

Oh yes, compulsory use of the NIV. There are only 66 books in the bible. Anything else is heresy. Books from the Apocrypha must not be read in Church.

Catholics aren't Christian. Saints, stained glass and liturgical observance are Popery. Lenten observance is to be mocked and sabotaged.

Oh yes, and dissenting voices of any of this need to be sidelined and shut up.

You make it sound like this is a new thing. The CofE has always had Evangelicals in it. Have you ever looked at the Prayer Book of 1552? And don't get me started on the 39 Articles ...
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Where did I say it was a new thing? Where did I say anything other than I was being driven out?

And it's all very well saying there'll be another CofE church along shortly. That's only true if you live in a large town or city.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When you get to the level of bishop, they're the ones who get to live rent-free in big mansions at our expense.

They've sold off most of the bishops' palaces and 'mansions'

Also, i earned more than a bishop as a senior teacher.

[ 23. November 2012, 17:48: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
a prevailing attitude

TRANSLATION: a regressive barb of outmoded bigotry that has yet to be corrected due to bureaucratic inertia.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
All that is needed is a small concession to get back those six lay votes. We'll see a solution in a matter of months rather than years. And I predict a final approval vote in favour of women bishops in the next two years....

As far as 'promises' are concerned, both sides have a point. This is a pretty good summary of the evidence as far as synodical debates are concerned. ...

Sorry for an overly long and un-hellish post.

Don't apologise - it's one of the most helpful posts I've read on this issue and the booklet has helped to challenge my assumptions.

I don't share your optimism that it will come back soon for another vote and get sorted. I think both 'sides' will dig their heels in: the pro- majority will insist on a single clause with no provision for dissenters; the 'traditionalists' will scent further victories and ask for more.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
When you get to the level of bishop, they're the ones who get to live rent-free in big mansions at our expense.

They've sold off most of the bishops' palaces and 'mansions'

They may not be mansions, but most of them are still pretty big "fuck off" houses.
 
Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?
As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...

Hell, yes!
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?
As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...

Hell, yes!

Although as a lay person (not church, but sorry -Lay) said in the pub a moment ago:

'but it wasn't a vote against women bishops was it? It was the wording of the legislation and the media ran with it, and stupid people who couldn't or wouldn't be prepared to analyse believed them'

Quite interesting from a random unbeliever who couldn't care either way.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
How could the lay members of the General Synod ignore the overwhelming votes by the Diocesan Synods to approve Women Bishops?!

Probably because they disagreed with it.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The other point is that we didn't just tell the minority opposed to women's ordination to get lost.

No. You gave them 20 years to learn to cope with it and realise that the sky hadn't fallen in.

Honestly, it's really not that much different to change management in an organisation. Working in an office that has been going through changes for about 1.5 years, and still is, is a fascinating exercise in psychology. You've got people who eagerly embrace change, people who panic at any sign of change, people who up and leave in melodramatic fashion, people who just get on with the day to day stuff and wait and see.

You don't need a nationwide church to see all that happening. Just an office of less than 100 people. And mostly just a floor with around 30 on it.

[ 23. November 2012, 22:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry to triple-post. This needs correcting because Justinian hasn't read the sources properly. There was no ban on 'new bishops opposing the ordination of women'. There was a 'clause' which allowed existing bishops the power to say no to any women priests in their dioceses, but future-appointed bishops could not do this. As it was, because of the London Plan and the Act of Synod, no existing bishops took advantage of this power and as a result there were no 'no-go' dioceses for women priests.

Thank you. I had indeed mostly misinterpreted that point. But not entirely - I still maintain that it is evidence of intent of the plan as a strictly temporary measure. And the best counter-argument that FiF should be able to come up with based on provisions like that is that it was intended to last as long as people currently in the Anglican Church remain alive.

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I still can't believe you're arguing with me. I said, for example, that no 'promises' could be binding on successors.

You didn't read my post. We aren't actually in any kind of major disagreement. But you don't deal with issues by a partial and simplistic 'verdict' of this kind. A small group of people understand those assurances as a promise to them - undergirded with the language of 'two integrities' and 'open reception'. My view is that the assurances lasted up until women bishops which is a game changer. Now new reassurances are needed.

My continual challenge since I started researching this matter to those who claim that there were promises is "Show me the promises" - and in specific to show where the promises were meant to last indefinitely. I thought you were trying to show such - but you are right in that we aren't in substantive disagreement for once.

quote:
quote:
And the real problem with MPs criticising the CofE is that they don't have much moral authority themselves.
Is there an echo? I just said that.
I thought we were making subtly different points - you were making the valid point that politicians are not to be trusted and bringing the CofE under the de facto control of MPs would be bad. I was making the related point that if MPs have more moral authority than the politicians (particularly the current bunch of MPs) then something has gone deeply, badly wrong.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?
As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...

Hell, yes!

Although as a lay person (not church, but sorry -Lay) said in the pub a moment ago:

'but it wasn't a vote against women bishops was it? It was the wording of the legislation and the media ran with it, and stupid people who couldn't or wouldn't be prepared to analyse believed them'


I'm afraid I'm a bit confused about this whole thing.

People on this thread keep saying it's a vote against women bishops.

But I have heard others say it was no such thing. It was a vote against concessions to those opposed to women bishops. So it was therefore a vote FOR women bishops (with no strings attached).

Which is it.....?


[Confused]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
That's always the problem with No votes. You can have completely different, even opposing, reasons to vote No.

Witness the Australian republic vote some years back. The monarchists and those who wanted a more radical republican model banded together.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Evensong, there are two main groups voting against this measure,
  1. the Reform group who are conservative evangelicals who are voting on the headship issue - so although women priests may be just about OK, bishops are definitely not, because they will be in leadership;
  2. the Anglo-catholic wing of the church who believe that women sacramentally cannot be priests, so bishops can't be either - and they're more likely to be voting against the legislation.

Those who are arguing against the legislation are looking back to the 1992 decision to ordain women. When that was enacted there was provision made for these priests who could not in conscience believe women could be priests. Many of the arguments above are discussing how that went.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Those who are arguing against the legislation are looking back to the 1992 decision to ordain women. When that was enacted there was provision made for these priests who could not in conscience believe women could be priests. Many of the arguments above are discussing how that went.

Sadly, it runs even deeper than that. The whole "flying bishop" thing we have at the moment is that they only want bishops who have not "tainted" their hands by ordaining women, so that their little group of priests are "pure". Somehow (according to their logic) any man who has been ordained by a bishop who has also ordained women isn't really a "proper" priest. What they are worried about is that they may have a male bishop who was consecrated by an Archbishop who has also consecrated women, thus, by their logic, making his episcopal orders invalid.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[QUOTE] .... the lowliest serf in the smallest congregation?

Whoa! Hang on a minute .... it's one thing insulting people on here, it's another to do it to people who have no hope of defending themselves.
Dude, I was talking about myself. If you read the rest of the post that should be obvious [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Those who are arguing against the legislation are looking back to the 1992 decision to ordain women. When that was enacted there was provision made for these priests who could not in conscience believe women could be priests. Many of the arguments above are discussing how that went.

Sadly, it runs even deeper than that. The whole "flying bishop" thing we have at the moment is that they only want bishops who have not "tainted" their hands by ordaining women, so that their little group of priests are "pure". Somehow (according to their logic) any man who has been ordained by a bishop who has also ordained women isn't really a "proper" priest. What they are worried about is that they may have a male bishop who was consecrated by an Archbishop who has also consecrated women, thus, by their logic, making his episcopal orders invalid.
So, wait, this is about... girl's germs?.

Good God. How old are these people, mentally? Nine?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
And I was trying so hard to be non-provocative [Disappointed]

Two things, most of the people quoted on the news here have been from Reform. I don't think I have heard anyone from the "traditional wing" of the Church going on record.

Secondly, Spike's comments on taint have been disputed in Purgatory - Barnabas62 has asked that discussion gets moved to Dead Horses and I'm not sure that's happened. I haven't encountered this commentary on taint in real life, just read about it on the Ship, where I've certainly seen it said. But the Ship does tend to attract the disaffected and extreme ends of religious expression.

And not all the Flying Bishops / PEVs empire built, some were more determined to force a permanent church within a church onto the CofE than others.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Presumably, there is great reluctance to get tough, and say to those objecting to women priests/bishops, look, either stay and lump it, or leave.

Is this considered to be very non-Christian?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

Those who are arguing against the legislation are looking back to the 1992 decision to ordain women. When that was enacted there was provision made for these priests who could not in conscience believe women could be priests. Many of the arguments above are discussing how that went.

Sadly, it runs even deeper than that. The whole "flying bishop" thing we have at the moment is that they only want bishops who have not "tainted" their hands by ordaining women, so that their little group of priests are "pure". Somehow (according to their logic) any man who has been ordained by a bishop who has also ordained women isn't really a "proper" priest. What they are worried about is that they may have a male bishop who was consecrated by an Archbishop who has also consecrated women, thus, by their logic, making his episcopal orders invalid.
No, this is quite simply not true. No member of FiF would (or should, because there may be a tiny swathe of nuttiness in there that doesn't actually understand or agree with the party line) dispute the orders of male priests ordained by male bishops.

We would not regard the orders of any bishop or priest ordained by a bishop invalid because that bishop had ordained women. We would regard the orders of those ordained by female bishops (or by bishops who had been ordained by female bishops) as questionable because we would question whether the female bishops were, sacramentally rather than juridicially, bishops.

The Archbishops' Amendment was
discussed on this thread (now in Oblivion). That, of course, was lost in the House of Clergy (by 5 votes). Had that got to the Final Approval stage, I believe that the vast majority of those who voted 'no' on Tuesday (whether bishops, clergy, or laity - whether or not they were "traditionalists" or "friends") would have voted 'yes' or abstained and thus the legislation would be through.

Thurible
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Laypeople aren't inferior to clergy, you know.

Clergy are the ones who are in charge, be it of a parish or a diocese. They are the bosses, the leaders, the top brass. They're the ones who are quite literally at the front every Sunday, and who the church teaches we cannot receive the sacraments without. They get paid to be Christians, we have to pay. When you get to the level of bishop, they're the ones who get to live rent-free in big mansions at our expense.

Whichever way you spin it, that sounds pretty superior to me.

I've been thinking about this because, well, it disturbs me to hear, in society at large, about the Church as a career structure. To hear it talked of in such terms by members of the Church makes me weep.

Yes, the roles of the ordained are different to the roles of the laity (though, of course, some laity are licensed to preach, lead worship, etc., and there are even some stipendiary lay ministers) but my concern seems to be the implication that you are contrasting "superior" with "inferior" rather than, say, "more responsibility" with "less responsibility" or, even, "senior" and "junior".

None of these terms are quite adequate because, of course, you are quite right that, sacramentally, the ordained do have an awful lot of power - to absolve, for example. However, I'm genuinely concerned by this idea that they are 'the landlord' and we the 'lowly serfs'.

My background is one of traditional Anglo-Catholicism where the priest, robed in vestments and on his way to the altar, is bowed to by the congregation, as a sign of the fact that he is in persona Christi. As soon as those vestments are removed, though, he is back to being Fr Brian who, whilst he has a pastoral responsibility for us, is very much a normal person who can be told that he is wrong and overruled by, for example, the churchwardens and PCC.

Thurible
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[X-p'd with Thurible, doncha know.]

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Sadly, it runs even deeper than that. The whole "flying bishop" thing we have at the moment is that they only want bishops who have not "tainted" their hands by ordaining women, so that their little group of priests are "pure". Somehow (according to their logic) any man who has been ordained by a bishop who has also ordained women isn't really a "proper" priest. What they are worried about is that they may have a male bishop who was consecrated by an Archbishop who has also consecrated women, thus, by their logic, making his episcopal orders invalid.

So, wait, this is about... girl's germs?.
What Spike said above is, I fear, utter bullshit.

Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.

Which suggests to me that some people dislike the opinions of others so much they will impute anything to them just so they can carry on believing ill of them, regardless of evidence.

Finally, there is a third category of those who voted against the measure this week in Synod - and judging from the speeches on the floor, I would think it at least as large as those opposing on headship grounds alone. That is, those who are entirely in favour of women bishops but feel the provisions made for opponents in the measure were too weak to be fair or charitable to their co-religionists.

There are people out there - you know, Christian people - who care about whether others they disagree with or even dislike are being treated as well as a "go the extra mile" ethic requires. I don't say they are correct and have the only Christian viewpoint on this issue - but that there are quite a few of them, and that their motivation is Christian, I think is indisputable. Yet no-one much seems to talk about them.

[ 24. November 2012, 09:57: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
quote:
Originally posted by DunkDuffel:
How could the lay members of the General Synod ignore the overwhelming votes by the Diocesan Synods to approve Women Bishops?!

Probably because they disagreed with it.
But surely members of General Synod are ex officio members of their Diocesan Synod?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Yes, the roles of the ordained are different to the roles of the laity (though, of course, some laity are licensed to preach, lead worship, etc., and there are even some stipendiary lay ministers) but my concern seems to be the implication that you are contrasting "superior" with "inferior" rather than, say, "more responsibility" with "less responsibility" or, even, "senior" and "junior".

It isn't hard to see how to get the notion of priests as "superior", though. It's quite simple really. There is a list of things that the laity aren't allowed to do in church, but priests can. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
I am not defending any of this, by the way, and have been out of the running to make what I say about the reasons for PEVs unreliable. But as I understand it, it is precisely because the relationship between a bishop and opponents to women priests had been impaired - the bishop ceased to be the symbol of unity within the dicoese for such people, and his pastoral authority was compromised for them. I think that was the gist of it.

But I can fully assure you that it has nothing to do with thinking the bishop's orders no longer valid. Proof of that? FiF (for example) had full priest members who were ordained by diocesans who had already ordained women priests too.

So can we drop the accusation that the trads think that bishops have validity-zapping cooties from having touched girls?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.

Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
I am not defending any of this, by the way, and have been out of the running to make what I say about the reasons for PEVs unreliable. But as I understand it, it is precisely because the relationship between a bishop and opponents to women priests had been impaired - the bishop ceased to be the symbol of unity within the dicoese for such people, and his pastoral authority was compromised for them. I think that was the gist of it.

But I can fully assure you that it has nothing to do with thinking the bishop's orders no longer valid. Proof of that? FiF (for example) had full priest members who were ordained by diocesans who had already ordained women priests too.

So can we drop the accusation that the trads think that bishops have validity-zapping cooties from having touched girls?

It may not be common, but I have seen in action.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.

What does that mean?
 
Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.

What does that mean?
It means (poorly proof-read though it was), that I have been a member of the congregation of a church in which the parish priest ceased concelebration on the basis that the hands of the other priest may be "tainted" by his acceptance of the priesthood of women. On closer inspection, it's not quite the same thing, but it is closely related. I think I associated the two because I remember feeling the same about that as I did about the "classical" version of the "tainted hands" concept.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, there is great reluctance to get tough, and say to those objecting to women priests/bishops, look, either stay and lump it, or leave.

Is this considered to be very non-Christian?

"Getting tough" was probably considered to be very un-CofE. The "England" and "Church" are both significant in that body's name, so some of the CofE's virtues and vices are those of England.

Vatican II enforced far more radical and bitterly opposed changes to the RCC. Different cultures and structures.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
It may not be common, but I have seen in action.

What does that mean?
It means (poorly proof-read though it was), that I have been a member of the congregation of a church in which the parish priest ceased concelebration on the basis that the hands of the other priest may be "tainted" by his acceptance of the priesthood of women. On closer inspection, it's not quite the same thing, but it is closely related. I think I associated the two because I remember feeling the same about that as I did about the "classical" version of the "tainted hands" concept.
It is not remotely the same thing I am talking about, unless you have evidence that the parish priest though the other priest no longer a priest at all because he accepted the ordination of women. Even then, a few outlying loonies do not make it ok to smear the whole of the FiF crowd with the a theory that they officially reject on paper and in practice.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Sometimes humour can be the best way of dealing with a tough situation, and not playing into the hands of those who would like people to get stressed up about it, reducing the arguments to a slanging match. I particularly liked this new, digitally remastered version of an old poem: When I am ordained I shall wear purple.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.

Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.
In church I mean.

I suppose I could give you the marriage one there, but then that might be buying into the idea that the church 'owns' marriage.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
We would not regard the orders of any bishop or priest ordained by a bishop invalid because that bishop had ordained women.

So why do some priests insist on being ordained by a bishop who hasn't dirtied his hands on women?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Because they don't want to be part of a presbyterium whose orders aren't fully interchangable.

Thurible
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
['nother cross-post]

Presumably, as I suggested above:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
it is precisely because the relationship between a bishop and opponents to women priests had been impaired - the bishop ceased to be the symbol of unity within the dicoese for such people, and his pastoral authority was compromised for them.

In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.

If it were - as you insist - that they no longer think such bishops to have the sacrmental wherewithal to ordain, why would the orders of men they subsequently ordained be accepted by them? Some of FiF's own priest members are such men. If you can't see that suppers your contention, then I guess nothing will.

[ 24. November 2012, 12:30: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Because they don't want to be part of a presbyterium whose orders aren't fully interchangable.

Thurible

According to whom? There only one Synod, and one church. The orders only fail to be interchangable on the say so of an intransigent minority who can see that their time is running out.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Chesterbelloc: In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.
But why on earth would you want to be ordained into a church that is ordaining women if you feel their orders are not sacramentally valid?

I have no problem with providing for those people who were members of the Church of England before 1992, who find women priests difficult to accept. Life long members of the Church of England for whom we still need to make provision, where they still exist. In my experience the majority who have remained within the church have seen women priests in action and accept their orders.

I have a huge problem with those men who cannot accept women as sacramentally valid priests and then chose to be ordained into a church that ordains men and women equally. That's stretching and twisting promises for that there will be a place within the church into knots.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As far as I'm aware, there isn't a single thing that the laity are allowed to do that a priest cannot also do.

Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry. Catholic priests cannot stand for election to state legislatures or become combatant members of the armed forces.
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.

No - men who are married at the time of ordination can be ordained, but a priest cannot enter into marriage after ordination. If his wife dies, he's stuck with being celibate. If he's not married when he's ordained, he is required to remain unmarried.

Orthodox BISHOPS cannot be married, so the pool for them is unmarried priests.
 
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Orthodox priests can marry.
As you were.

No - men who are married at the time of ordination can be ordained, but a priest cannot enter into marriage after ordination. If his wife dies, he's stuck with being celibate. If he's not married when he's ordained, he is required to remain unmarried.

Orthodox BISHOPS cannot be married, so the pool for them is unmarried priests.

Yes, and most often they are monks.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.

But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.

The problem is not that we falsely think you do bad things you don't do. It is that you do things we think are bad and you think are good. And one of those things is rejecting the ministry of men who ordain women.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry.

I don't know what the Orthodox position is (I have a vague idea that some Orthodox posters here took the position that Christian marriage is something different from civil marriage and so only the Orthodox Church can conduct a valid Christian marriage). And I am certainly not a canon lawyer. But I'm pretty sure the Catholic position is that a priest who gets married has broken his vows to the church and so has to stop working as a priest. But they would be validly married, so in that sense at least a priest can marry.

And I guess they would still be an ordained priest in the eyes of the church as well, at least in some sense. In Anglican terms they've lost their licence to function as a priest, but they haven't lost their ordination. So if a married priest was reconciled to the church some time later (presumably after being widowed, I assume that they no longer lock women away in nunneries to compel them to celibacy) they could resume serving as a priest without having to be ordained again. Not that I'm at all sure of that. And the only such case I can think of was Abelard and Heloise, which was quite a long time ago.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
My background is one of traditional Anglo-Catholicism where the priest, robed in vestments and on his way to the altar, is bowed to by the congregation, as a sign of the fact that he is in persona Christi. Thurible

Same here but I don't see it in quite the same way - we bow to thurifers before and after they cense us. And when the priest reaches the quite he bows to left and right and they bow back.

Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Suck it up.

Most of us probably will, in the end. We'll continue to apologise for the Church. We'll continue to explain. So, suppose someone asks me, "Why did Synod vote against women bishops?" Is "Because they're a bunch of brainless troglodytes who wouldn't know the will of God if it bit them on the arse" a sufficient explanation?
As someone sitting on the sidelines, but has had to answer similar questions about their own church...

Hell, yes!

Although as a lay person (not church, but sorry -Lay) said in the pub a moment ago:

'but it wasn't a vote against women bishops was it? It was the wording of the legislation and the media ran with it, and stupid people who couldn't or wouldn't be prepared to analyse believed them'

Quite interesting from a random unbeliever who couldn't care either way.

That's exactly right and how I see it.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Chesterbelloc: In addition, it might be to avoid the awkwardness of compromising their (officially protected) beliefs about women in the priesthood by being ordained alongside women in the same ceremony. All of this is perfectly consistent with believing the bishop still to be a bishop and the male priests he ordains to be priests.
But why on earth would you want to be ordained into a church that is ordaining women if you feel their orders are not sacramentally valid?
That's an entirely different question, and not one I'm competent to answer on their behalf.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.

But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.
For a smart chap, you don't seem to read too well. Here's how the last bit of the exchange went over in Purg:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
I'd appreciate it, though, if you would accept that you are wrong on the issue of whether or not we accept the orders of those ordained by women-ordaining bishops.
e

If you will not have those people as ministers in your churches and you will not accept communion when they preside what can it possibly mean to say that you do accept them as priests?
Thurible's answer was that he thought they validly and efficaciously said the Eucharist. I have pointed out that FiF accept the priesthood of men ordained by bishops who have also ordained women to the extent that they have them as full priest members, and as celebrants at their masses.

If that's not a refutation, what would be?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Well, Catholic and Orthodox priests cannot marry.

[...] I'm pretty sure the Catholic position is that a priest who gets married has broken his vows to the church and so has to stop working as a priest. But they would be validly married, so in that sense at least a priest can marry.
[Roll Eyes] As I said, Catholic priests cannot marry. Just how does being forbidden to marry on pain of laicisation (i.e., abandoning the exercise of priesthood) not count as something a priest cannot do, in the sense relevant to Marvin's complaint?

But not only are you splitting hairs, if not outright equivocating, but you're also wrong. A priest who married without the necessary dispensation would find that his marriage was invalid in canon law: i.e., that he wasn't married at all.

IANACL, so will have to chow down on my word-pie if one should come along and refute me. But I'd like to think I will have the decency to admit I'm wrong rather than bluster on. ken.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.

As the congregation is to them.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
[Roll Eyes] As I said, Catholic priests cannot marry. Just how does being forbidden to marry on pain of laicisation (i.e., abandoning the exercise of priesthood) not count as something a priest cannot do, in the sense relevant to Marvin's complaint?

But not only are you splitting hairs, if not outright equivocating, but you're also wrong. A priest who married without the necessary dispensation would find that his marriage was invalid in canon law: i.e., that he wasn't married at all.

IANACL, so will have to chow down on my word-pie if one should come along and refute me. But I'd like to think I will have the decency to admit I'm wrong rather than bluster on. ken.

IAACL and can confirm that you are correct. Canon 1087 says, in translation: "Those who are in Sacred Orders invalidly attempt marriage." Doing so doesn't immediately result in laicisation but incurs the penalty of suspension, which, in the event of a failure to reform can, eventually, lead to dismissal from the clerical state (can.1394.1).
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thank you, Trisagion.

Now I'll have to rustle up something else for supper.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


Both priest and thurifer are acting as Christ to us.

As the congregation is to them.
Exactly.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
A curate at an A+B parish near where I used to live, did not attend the pre-ordination retreat with his curate cohort and would not be ordained in the same service. In fact he was ordained in a seperate service in his own church by the PEV, obviousley I am not party to the ins and outs of what went on, but he refused to participate in chapter meetings as well, with the females clergy..
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I'm perfectly prepared to believe all of that, Zachaeus. But I think you'll find that none of it has anything to do with the point I was making.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
A curate at an A+B parish near where I used to live, did not attend the pre-ordination retreat with his curate cohort and would not be ordained in the same service. In fact he was ordained in a seperate service in his own church by the PEV, obviousley I am not party to the ins and outs of what went on, but he refused to participate in chapter meetings as well, with the females clergy..
I live in a FiF parish. Its curates get ordained by the PEV but they attended the retreats and even the ordinations (though not communicating) of their fellows.

The vicar takes a full part in chapter (indeed, chapters plural since he has 3 churches in 2 different deaneries) and is unfailingly collegial to women clergy and rates their ministry at all points except when it comes to offering mass.

He invites clergy from 'the other integrity' to preach on special occasions and also to concelebrate.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

I've seen this argument advanced against opponents of OoW so often on these boards and then refuted by others just as often - most recently yesterday, by Thurible in Purgatory - but back it comes again and again.

But it wasn't refuted! What Thurible said was exactly what Spike and me are saying FiF do. He just called it something else.

In the years we've been on the Ship together, I've never thought of you as unintelligent. Or illiterate. My only conclusion can be, therefore, that you're being deliberately stupid.

Thurible
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.

[ 24. November 2012, 20:00: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
You anal little freaks are making my eyes bleed. Cut the drunken bird-walking and find your way back to a point, or take this fascinating* discussion elsewhere; somewhere where the hosts might actually give a half fuck about ... Whatever this is.

Poor Jesus. I know he didnt intend everything to get this convoluted.

*aka boring as watching snot freeze on my windshield
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.

Maybe you'd be more likely to get an answer to that if either you or ken were to retract or attempt to substantiate your debunked assertion, and thus demonstrate that you're not just jerking us around.

To give comet her due pinch of incense, I'd be happy to hear you do so on a new thread, to which I would certainly consider contributing. Forgive me if I don't start one myself - I feel Thurible and I have done our bit already.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
If that's not a refutation, what would be?

That would be a theoretical distinction without a practical difference.

A real refutation would be a theoretical distinction that actually led, in practice, to not turning away people because they've expressed the view that female priests are okay.

[ 24. November 2012, 21:15: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Forgive me for being stupid, but why do you need PEVs? Please explain in simple language that stupid people like ken and I can understand.

Maybe you'd be more likely to get an answer to that if either you or ken were to retract or attempt to substantiate your debunked assertion, and thus demonstrate that you're not just jerking us around.

As someone who didn't know anything about this particular question until this thread started, I can assure you that the assertion of Spike and ken hasn't been debunked.

What's happened so far is that you and Thurible have nicely demonstrated that in principle everyone acknowledges the spiritual authority of male bishops who have ordained female priests. They just never get invited by the FiF types, because then that would mean there was a risk of bumping into an ordained woman and having her say "oh, you were ordained by Bishop X? ME TOO!"

And then people might risk their brains going "oh look, her ministry has the exact same basis as mine". And that would never do.

The fact is, the male-only crowd don't want to have anything to do with a more senior authority that doesn't agree with them. It's all very well to continue to say that the bishop still has authority 'in principle', so long as there's no risk whatsoever of that bishop having an opportunity to pull people into line.

[ 24. November 2012, 21:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Orfeo, you're just plain wrong. Take it to another thread and I'll explain why.

In the meantime, check (as everyone else here can) what I have actually been saying on this thread and you may save yourself the bother. At the moment, it just looks like you're widening the goalposts to make it seem as if ken and Spike have scored.

[ 24. November 2012, 21:34: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I did check what you said. You said stuff about relationships being broken and bishops no longer being a symbol of unity.

The idea that a bishop who doesn't agree with you is no longer a symbol of unity, but a bishop who DOES agree with you is still okay, is quite fascinating.

And there's nothing wrong with this thread, for saying that the whole situation with women's ordination in the Anglican church is a crazy illogical mess.

[ 24. November 2012, 21:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I did check what you said. You said stuff about relationships being broken and bishops no longer being a symbol of unity.

Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And there's nothing wrong with this thread, for saying that the whole situation with women's ordination in the Anglican church is a crazy illogical mess.

Uhuh. And what did that have to do with my specific point, and your challenge of it? You might want to check with comet about what she was saying upthread. Sounded to me as if she wanted to knock the whole taint/invalidity discussion on the head or take it somewhere else.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Huh. This is interesting. Ebbsfleet are a bunch of liars - and I've just had to slap down Thurible in the other thread for being taken in by them.

On the Ebbsfleet website under the heading Resources/Legislation relevant to the See of Ebbsfleet they have what they claim to be the Act of Synod. A simple glance shows that the act starts with the word "Proposed".

The Church of England website has the actual act (which starts with the word "Passed"). Notably the Ebbsfleet version starts with the declarations
quote:
1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
the real version starts
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Ebbsfleet are outright lying about the Act of Synod that brought them into existance - what they claim to be legislation isn't. This goes some way to explaining the differences in what was supposedly promised that people are claiming.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Justinian, could you make up your mind where you're going to post. It's already in DH (to which you allude), and there are a couple of places it could go in Purgatory. If the hosts there are willing I'm sure we could make a game of "posting the same crap in the most places".

Alternatively we could pray that posts appear in one(1) place only.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.

Bingo.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I just emailed the Ebbsfleet "email enquiries" address, politely.

It will be interesting to see what response, if any, I get.

It's one thing for people to have disagreements about matters of opinion and interpretation. It's quite another to be having those disagreements on the basis of different facts. And the final text of a legal document is a fact. I should know.

[ 25. November 2012, 02:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Except, Justinian, you are quoting two different pieces of legislation: you are quoting from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, which was the legal bit that passed through parliament. This legislation was added to by the General Synod in the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, which is what Thurible was quoting.

Two different things.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Except, Justinian, you are quoting two different pieces of legislation: you are quoting from the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, which was the legal bit that passed through parliament. This legislation was added to by the General Synod in the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993, which is what Thurible was quoting.

Two different things.

BZZT. WRONG.

Fuck me, just follow the link, would you? It it is quite clearly headed as the Act of Synod, not as the Measure, and makes reference to the Measure as being a different document.

It's not fucking hard. I don't even know the first thing about Church of England legislation, and it took me all of 5 minutes to check what Justinian was saying and confirm it.

[ 25. November 2012, 02:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
My bad - it's flipping between threads that confused me. On DH he quoted the Measure.

But I get what he's saying about the slight difference between the versions.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Excellent.

Now, I don't know whether the people responsible for that site are liars, wilfully blind or just incompetent. I'll wait to find out.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
actually, I'm not sure what the issue is and how there are grounds for such a strong accusation of "wilful liars" as if they are distorting the Act.

The "proposed" version says "There shall be no discrimination against" whereas the final Act passed says "no person or body shall discriminate against".

How is that such a major distortion as to warrant labelling them wilful liars? It seems more like Justinian has gone a-hunting in the hopes of finding some evidence - but that's all he comes up with? Not convincing.

Also not my fight, so I'd best just keep out of it.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.

So I ask again, what are PEVs for?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.

Well, with respect, she could have made that a lot clearer.

Her "get back to the point" post immediately followed six posts over more than two hours, none of which was on marriage and all but one of which were on the continuing issue of whether OoW-opponents accept the orders of bishops who ordain women or male priests ordained by them. Which they undeniably do.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Actaully, if you had checked, you'd have seen that my point was to challenge ken and Spike about a specific allegation: that the opponents of women priests generally hold that bishops who had ordained women and priests who had been ordained by such bishops have thereby invalid orders. Which is - provenly - bullshit. All the stuff about unity, and broken relationships I submitted to those who know better than me about it for potential correction.

So I ask again, what are PEVs for?
I don't even claim to know any more, Spike.

Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Nah, mostly she wanted everyone to stop wittering on about marriage.

Well, with respect, she could have made that a lot clearer.

Her "get back to the point" post immediately followed six posts over more than two hours, none of which was on marriage and all but one of which were on the continuing issue of whether OoW-opponents accept the orders of bishops who ordain women or male priests ordained by them. Which they undeniably do.

With respect, go fuck yourself, you freakishly anal-retentive, nit-picking little pansy eater. Do you think I'm sitting here monitoring each post as it's made?

And yes, i'll endeavor to be more clear in the future.

Seriously, dude. Get your head out of your ass. It can't be easy to blink in there.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Huh. This is interesting. Ebbsfleet are a bunch of liars - and I've just had to slap down Thurible in the other thread for being taken in by them.

On the Ebbsfleet website under the heading Resources/Legislation relevant to the See of Ebbsfleet they have what they claim to be the Act of Synod. A simple glance shows that the act starts with the word "Proposed".

The Church of England website has the actual act (which starts with the word "Passed"). Notably the Ebbsfleet version starts with the declarations
quote:
1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
the real version starts
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Ebbsfleet are outright lying about the Act of Synod that brought them into existance - what they claim to be legislation isn't. This goes some way to explaining the differences in what was supposedly promised that people are claiming.

The question, Justinian, is on what occasions DOES the Act of Synod allow such discrimination. If, as I suspect, they are extremely limited ones, then the summary presented is entirely accurate; having just scanned through the Measure, it seems the only scenario that appears in the measure is the appointment to parishes that oppose the OoW, where opposition is indeed an appropriate step. So, Justinian, you are bitching at gnats, a sign that you really are just trying to stir up trouble. Of course that's the fashionable thing to do - to throw as much bovine faecal material at your opponents in the hope that some of it will stick. But for a Christian to do that? I think a public confession before your next trip to communion is called for.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thank you, comet. But I was actually trying to be compliant with what I thought you were demanding. It appears I guessed wrongly about that. But, yes, I did think you were monitoring each post - I thought that's what hosts did.

[ 25. November 2012, 08:43: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Eh. You were right, I was unclear. I tell ya, I try and try to get you all to read my mind, and it goes nowhere. Geez.

We monitor posts as we're available to do so. Which is why they try and get hosts from many timezones. I was just making my first read of the day when I posted, so I had some catching up to do. My post was vaguely aimed at all of page 9, essentially.

[ 25. November 2012, 08:48: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. [Hot and Hormonal] Thank you.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Who is this Ruby? And when did she become less valuable than comet?
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. [Hot and Hormonal] Thank you.

Pedant alert

Ruby's what?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
actually, I'm not sure what the issue is and how there are grounds for such a strong accusation of "wilful liars" as if they are distorting the Act.

The "proposed" version says "There shall be no discrimination against" whereas the final Act passed says "no person or body shall discriminate against".

How is that such a major distortion as to warrant labelling them wilful liars? It seems more like Justinian has gone a-hunting in the hopes of finding some evidence - but that's all he comes up with? Not convincing.

Also not my fight, so I'd best just keep out of it.

Given that Justinian highlighted a highly relevant section of a sentence, I'm not going to dignify this with any further answer than go and read the highlighted bit of the sentence.

No, wait, I'm going to dignify it with a further answer, because I'm a drafter by profession. And if I wrote something like "subject to" or "except as provided by", it's basically a bloody great big red flag that there's something else that's going to turn an absolute statement into a non-absolute one.

EDIT: Particularly when it's a late change to the text, as demonstrate nicely by the existence of the proposed version. People simply do not go adding in things like "Unless this Act or the Measure says otherwise" for no reason whatsoever. They do it because they're contemplating that the general statement that follows is going to be overridden by other parts of the text.

I do like how your quote from the first version starts with a capital letter - the start of the sentence - and the quote from the passed version starts with a lower case letter - not the start of the sentence. Now I'm wondering, did you somehow just manage to not see the first part of the sentence, or did you somehow hope that I hadn't?

[ 25. November 2012, 10:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Um, subject to the Measure and the Act - which in fact provides for a form of positive discrimination in favour to those opposed: that's what those bits of legislation do. They don't provide for legal discrimination against the opponents but rather on behalf of the opponents.

I learnt here on these boards that the time-limit placed on bishops was about allowing them to make dioceses "no go" areas - but only by those then in post - subsequent bishops couldn't do that. I got that just by skimming the posts here. But that information seems to have been ignored.

This is like Biblical proof-texting innit. People trying to read back what the text meant without seeing how those who wrote it actually implemented it. As I recall they implemented it quite the way Thurible has argued, by appointing Hope to York, Chartres to London and so on.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Comet, you shame me - your price is above Ruby's. [Hot and Hormonal] Thank you.

Pedant alert

Ruby's what?

[Biased]

Just a wee proverbial joke, Boogie.

[ 25. November 2012, 13:23: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Even when I was one - and was deeply involved in FiF - I never once met an anglo-catholic who believed that the orders of a bishop who has ordained women were somehow thereby "invalidated". That is simply not an argument that any anglo-catholics I knew ever used, even amongst themselves.

Then why are the PEVs needed? If all the CofE Bishops, who are all male, are fully, properly, validly, whateverly Bishops, why is another Bishop needed. If the relationship is impaired, what has impaired it if it isn't the 'taint' of ordaining women?
It was using this argument that the Church in Wales stopped having its equivalent of a flying bishop, after the last one retired. A few anti-women clergy challenged their bishops at various synods but didn't get very far, simply because all the bishops are male, and take responsibility for the pastoral care of all the priests in their care, whether they want it or not. For a few in our diocese, it meant going to a chrism mass at their own cathedral for the first time in 20 years.
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
It's a fantasy exercise I know, but I can't help wondering what the result on this matter would have been in the UK Roman Catholic Church, if it had the same decision-making structure as the Church of England in place ... Any thoughts??
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
AIUI, there isn't a decision-making structure in the RC church anything like the Anglicans have. You do as you're told, don't you?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.

Pretty much. Also please see above.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
This is like Biblical proof-texting innit. People trying to read back what the text meant without seeing how those who wrote it actually implemented it.

No, it isn't anything like Biblical proof-texting, because the Bible isn't written anything like the same way that laws are written. Again, I should know, I write the damn things.

Laws, that is, not Bibles.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Because he's never consecrated any female bishops?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I know it's a forlorn hope because there's so much of it here already and you're having a fun debate to which Spike is responding but, all of you, note that this is a Hell thread on the "Flippin' Synod" and the debate about the ordination of women is one of our favourite Dead Horses, so play that game there, pretty please.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Sioni, please indulge just this one response, and I promise to take the rest elsewhwere.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Why won't you admit that whatever else they're for they're not there because opponents of OoW reject the orders of every other bishop or priest? If they believed that, how could they accept even their own PEVs, who have been consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Because he's never consecrated any female bishops?
Say what? Now I know you're just jerking me around. That's seriously lame, Spike.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
OK Chesterbelloc, accepted. Please, everyone, don't continue the debate here.

Firm Hostly Advisory:

We have discussed this with the Admins and we accept that this thread, in Hell, cannot be restricted purely to matters of the Synod. It can therefore cater for other related aspects such as PEVs, the 1992 motion, OoW and the rights and wrongs of women bishops.

However, please follow these guidelines (closely!):

- Use this thread for Hellish exchanges only.

- Do not use this thread as an alternative to debates elsewhere. Primary debates are to take place in specialised threads in Dead Horses and Purgatory.

- Do not under any circumstances whatsoever place the same material in two places, which causes bifurcation. That really does get my goat, and you don't want my goat gotten.

Message ends.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Thanks, Sioni - message received and understood.

Spike, we can continue this little discussion elsewhere if you like. Or not, just as you please.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I think that to the general public, it is as if this has suddenly become a documentary.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think that to the general public, it is as if this has suddenly become a documentary.

[Killing me] [Devil] So true!
 
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceannaideach:
If six people had voted yes then it would have gone through. SIX PEOPLE! [Mad]

I don't think it is even that - three people who voted 'no' voting 'yes' would have changed it. So now we are stuck with years more wrangling.
And in the synod debate many, many people rising to speak said that they were FOR having women bishops ordained, but that they did not like the code of practice amendment, and because of that they would vote NO!

I cringed every time that I heard one of those types rise to speak in the hours of live stream I listened to. When one rose to object on that amendment point they always began by saying how much they supported women bishops and then ended with that negative reasoning. I could tell how they would finish from the way that they approached the issues.

Next time there should be no code of practice. It should be women bishops for the Church of England, and if you don't like that go join some other church where you will feel at home. So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.

[Mad] Grrr!

*
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

I cringed every time that I heard one of those types rise to speak in the hours of live stream I listened to. When one rose to object on that amendment point they always began by saying how much they supported women bishops and then ended with that negative reasoning. I could tell how they would finish from the way that they approached the issues.

This smacks of 'having their cake and eating it'. They want to be seen as forward looking and 'for' women - but actually would prefer the status quo.

Seems to be all about image for these folk.

Interesting that their voting has been published so that we all can see exactly who they are. I wonder how they have been received since?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:

I cringed every time that I heard one of those types rise to speak in the hours of live stream I listened to. When one rose to object on that amendment point they always began by saying how much they supported women bishops and then ended with that negative reasoning. I could tell how they would finish from the way that they approached the issues.

This smacks of 'having their cake and eating it'. They want to be seen as forward looking and 'for' women - but actually would prefer the status quo.

Seems to be all about image for these folk.

Interesting that their voting has been published so that we all can see exactly who they are. I wonder how they have been received since?

I'm afraid my thought was "I'm not a racist but .....".

But then I've got a bad, cynical streak about me. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.

[Mad] Grrr!

Yeah, some people are just dirt and don't deserve to be treated with the same standard of fairness and tolerance as others - it's just wasted on them. That vicar from the Mitchell & Webb clip would know how to treat that kind of scum.
quote:
Interesting that their voting has been published so that we all can see exactly who they are. I wonder how they have been received since?

Why don't you, Mr. Rob and all the other villagers pop round to their place one evening - better take some blazing torches to light the way - and show them just what kind of reception they deserve?

[ 27. November 2012, 08:28: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The General Synod votes for Chelmsford, from that link shows the House of Clergy carried, two clergy voted against, one is a leading light of Reform, the other is another leading evangelical. Compare that to the vote in Chelmsford Diocese in June 2011 (Word doc) - 44 for, 11 against, 5 abstentions.

At General Synod for the House of Laity members, four of the seven voted against. The Chelmsford Diocesan Synod vote in June 2011, 44 for, 16 against, 1 abstention. The ones I recognise are from Confessing Anglican churches. Which confirms my comments that evangelical influence was more important, certainly in Chelmsford.

(Confessing Anglican is GAFCON)
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Next time there should be no code of practice. It should be women bishops for the Church of England, and if you don't like that go join some other church where you will feel at home. So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.

[Mad] Grrr!


Ah the voice of the fundamentalist is heard in the land. IF we are serious about church membership as being more than just a convenient label, then we have to minimise the exclusion of anyone; the idea that acceptance of women in ministry should be a test for membership of the true Church is totally abhorrent to me - YMMV. And of course given that libruls spend most of their time wanting to ignore the bits of the creed / bible / canon law that they find inconvenient, it really does not behove them to make THIS the one issue on which you've got to shape up or ship up.

OK - so here's a deal: we pass the legislation with no protection for opponents of women bishops - and add a rider - all licensed clerics will affirm privately before their bishop that:

1) They are not in a gay relationship
2) They have not carried out a service that was or could be understood to be a service of blessing for a gay relationship.
3) They will commit to not do either of the above on penalty of criminal proceedings for obtaining income by deception.

All clerics who refuse to make this affirmation will be dismissed forthwith.

How does that strike you? Personally I think it's the minimum the church should require [Mad]
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.

CBA.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Next time there should be no code of practice. It should be women bishops for the Church of England, and if you don't like that go join some other church where you will feel at home. So much for the famed English sense of fair play. The notion of generous fair play was completely lost on those negative, suspicious people. Bending over backwards to accommodate them will not satisfy them.

[Mad] Grrr!


Ah the voice of the fundamentalist is heard in the land. IF we are serious about church membership as being more than just a convenient label, then we have to minimise the exclusion of anyone; the idea that acceptance of women in ministry should be a test for membership of the true Church is totally abhorrent to me - YMMV. And of course given that libruls spend most of their time wanting to ignore the bits of the creed / bible / canon law that they find inconvenient, it really does not behove them to make THIS the one issue on which you've got to shape up or ship up.

OK - so here's a deal: we pass the legislation with no protection for opponents of women bishops - and add a rider - all licensed clerics will affirm privately before their bishop that:

1) They are not in a gay relationship
2) They have not carried out a service that was or could be understood to be a service of blessing for a gay relationship.
3) They will commit to not do either of the above on penalty of criminal proceedings for obtaining income by deception.

All clerics who refuse to make this affirmation will be dismissed forthwith.

How does that strike you? Personally I think it's the minimum the church should require [Mad]

Pot meet kettle. All you're doing in that post is making your hot button issue the acid test of who is a sheep and a goat instead of their's.

When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life. And, the more hot air and bandwidth that is expended on this, the more I begin to wonder how much Jesus actually cares ... If the church spent as much time expounding the Gospel - you know the Jesus loves you and wants to know you stuff - and helping the poor and needy as they do on this shit, we might not be in quite the mess we're in.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Pot meet kettle. All you're doing in that post is making your hot button issue the acid test of who is a sheep and a goat instead of their's.

Indeed - and that at its heart is my point; who are our librul fundamentalists to unchurch the traditionalists on this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life.

Hmm - that's where it gets icky. On the whole I disagree with that statement. At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.

We shouldn't be too surprised at the intensity of the battle over this issue, as a quote sometimes ascribed to Luther puts it:
quote:
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.

“Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”


 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
There's also another big difference. No-one is asking people who think female bishops are abhorrent to state otherwise. They don't have to have any special meetings with bishops to declare their acceptance.

They can believe what they want and say what they want in private or in public.

But they want to stop the majority of the church, who are perfectly happy to have female bishops, from having them. And then say that they are being forced out if we have them.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Wrong. For the n time, the 'no' vote was about provision.

Had the feckless libs in the House of Clergy voted 'Yes' to the Archbishops' Amendment in 2010, the CofE would have voted 'Yes' on Tuesday.

Thurible

[ 27. November 2012, 11:27: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'll accept that the problem for some is about provision. But that clearly isn't the sum total of ES's problem(s).
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Pot meet kettle. All you're doing in that post is making your hot button issue the acid test of who is a sheep and a goat instead of their's.

Indeed - and that at its heart is my point; who are our librul fundamentalists to unchurch the traditionalists on this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life.

Hmm - that's where it gets icky. On the whole I disagree with that statement. At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.

We shouldn't be too surprised at the intensity of the battle over this issue, as a quote sometimes ascribed to Luther puts it:
quote:
“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.

“Wherever the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”


But who are the traditionalists to attempt to unchurch the librul fundamentalists over issues either? You can't squark about the bad thing that they're doing when you're attempting to do the exactly the same thing.

I obviously missed the Big Bible re-write so salvation stopped being decided on whether you accepted Christ as your Saviour and Lord and got decided on something else entirely. Where on earth does grace fit into this then?

Tubbs
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Tubbs, if you were really saved, really had Saving Faith, then you'd recognise that Teh Gayness is bad and girls have cooties.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.

CBA.
From the Urban Dictionary:


quote:
C BA is a severe form of laziness.

Often comparable to a psychological/medical condition. CBA is most common in teenagers around the age of 16-17 years of age.
Person 1: You coming?
Person 2: Nah, I've got a severe case of CBA.

For the edification of non-Brits following along. It also explains Glockenspiel's posting style.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Huh. This is interesting. Ebbsfleet are a bunch of liars - and I've just had to slap down Thurible in the other thread for being taken in by them.

On the Ebbsfleet website under the heading Resources/Legislation relevant to the See of Ebbsfleet they have what they claim to be the Act of Synod. A simple glance shows that the act starts with the word "Proposed".

The Church of England website has the actual act (which starts with the word "Passed"). Notably the Ebbsfleet version starts with the declarations
quote:
1. There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
the real version starts
quote:
Except as provided by the Measure and this Act no person or body shall discriminate against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their view or positions about the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Ebbsfleet are outright lying about the Act of Synod that brought them into existance - what they claim to be legislation isn't. This goes some way to explaining the differences in what was supposedly promised that people are claiming.

The question, Justinian, is on what occasions DOES the Act of Synod allow such discrimination. If, as I suspect, they are extremely limited ones, then the summary presented is entirely accurate; having just scanned through the Measure, it seems the only scenario that appears in the measure is the appointment to parishes that oppose the OoW, where opposition is indeed an appropriate step. So, Justinian, you are bitching at gnats, a sign that you really are just trying to stir up trouble. Of course that's the fashionable thing to do - to throw as much bovine faecal material at your opponents in the hope that some of it will stick. But for a Christian to do that? I think a public confession before your next trip to communion is called for.
No. The question is, Enders Shadow, why Ebbesfleet has something up on their website that they claim is the legislation under which they are based that isn't. The draft legislation that was put up (and I believe is the basis of the claim that "there will be no discrimination" - one of the so-called promises that mysteriously never actually say what was claimed) was written in 1992. The webpage itself was put up between 2000 (when the site was registered by Andrew Burnham) and 2003.

A cursory scan shows that the so-called Act of Synod on the Ebbesfleet website is not the real one. You only need to read the first line to see that it is something proposed rather than something passed. But it is a piece of writing that gives the sexist lobby a nice pull-quote that I have seen used in several places. We have a false doccument passed off as the real one in a way that is just about plausibly deniable. Means, motive, and opportunity.

Now let's look at the contortions needed for an innocent explanation. There are two basic paths.

1: The wrong electronic document. This on the face of it sounds superficially plausible. Except that that draft was written in 1993. The Ebbesfleet Website was put up at the earliest in 2000 (whois lookup). So the wrong version of the Act of Synod would have had to be passed from computer to computer for more than ten years, crossing the Windows 95 barrier, and was then put up almost unchecked when it was an important document and even scanning the first line shows it to be wrong.

2: Typed up from a draft paper. With no one along the way stopping to think that it said "Proposed" or that there should be a copy of the actual act around.

I'm not sure which of these options for putting up an almost ten year old draft that wasn't accepted as the real thing is less plausible.

And Enders' Shadow, you are the poster boy on these boards for throwing vile shit around at people and hoping some of it sticks. Has your record on this made you think that everything said by everyone is shit - does living in your sty just make everything taste like shit? Either way your accusing others of throwing shit when there is a distinct legal difference is nothing other than blatant projection.

As for Triple Tiara's customary incisiveness and thoughtfulness by not actually clicking the right link and then blaming it on the fact that on DH I quoted and linked both the Act and the Measure and he could only be bothered to read the part that explicitly said it was the measure rather than following the link saying where you could read the actual act. You are an incompetent twit Triple Tiara. Grown ups are arguing about facts here - why don't you go and play in your sandpit?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Tubbs agonised:

quote:
Where on earth does grace fit into this then?
Before meals. And sometimes, after.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

When we arrive at the pearly gates, where you stood on gays or women isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to whether or not your name is in the Book of Life.

Hmm - that's where it gets icky. On the whole I disagree with that statement. At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.

If you think the issue of gays and women is more important than the poor and needy (as Tubbs pointed out - which you ignored ) then I hope you leave the church sooner rather than later.

So you can leave us libruls to get on with the real gospel.

But that's probably too biblical a stance for you.

[ 27. November 2012, 11:58: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
And there's St Peter at the pearly gates ticking the boxes on his clipboard form.

"Took care of me when I was sick?.... tick. Fed me when I was hungry?... tick. Visited me in prison?... tick. All good so far for what we originally envisaged as the process.

But actually we added an extra question or two in the few hundred years that followed. No unconfessed mortal sin?... tick. Oh yes, and this one came in in the last 100 years: Confessed Christ as personal lord and saviour?... tick. Got both of those, well done, that doesn't often happen.

Very good, in you... ah sorry, missed one last one.

Kept the gays out?.... Oh dear. Can't really honestly tick that one can we? Awfully sorry..."

[ 27. November 2012, 12:17: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tubbs, if you were really saved, really had Saving Faith, then you'd recognise that Teh Gayness is bad and girls have cooties.

It's a marvellous, self supporting, circular argument isn't it?! [Biased]

I don't have to listen to anyone who disagrees with me because, if they were truely saved, they'd realise that I was right ... [brick wall]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Tubbs, if you were really saved, really had Saving Faith, then you'd recognise that Teh Gayness is bad and girls have cooties.

It's a marvellous, self supporting, circular argument isn't it?! [Biased]

I don't have to listen to anyone who disagrees with me because, if they were truely saved, they'd realise that I was right ... [brick wall]

Tubbs

No idea if that's ES' position, but I've had it thrust at me with regard to hyper-Calvinism.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.

They were misled, and it is/was very sad for them. But to continue to mislead them is plain cruel.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
My Exclusive Brethren in-laws take this one stage further: "if you had 'the light', you wouldn't even have to ask the question"!

(There's so much in that statement that smacks of neo-gnosticism that I don't even know where to start!)
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
At the moment I'm sticking with the CofE despite its total confusion on the issue, but I've a nasty suspicion the tide is going to get to a point where I can't carry on in the CofE - it would be a betrayal of the those gays down the ages who heard God call them to live celibately, driven from a desire to conform to the world's agenda.

Wait, what? "We have been torturing people for centuries. To not torture any more people would be to betray those we have already tortured?"

Is that seriously your argument?
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Wrong. For the n time, the 'no' vote was about provision.

Had the feckless libs in the House of Clergy voted 'Yes' to the Archbishops' Amendment in 2010, the CofE would have voted 'Yes' on Tuesday.

Thurible

So
you say. But I don't believe you. It was a vote against women in priest's orders as well as women in the episcopacy, under the guise of a vote about provision.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think that to the general public, it is as if this has suddenly become a documentary.

[Killing me] [Devil] So true!
It is how Ender's Shadow sounds in my head - I am not actually sure the priest says anything in that clip he disagrees with.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Tubbs agonised:

quote:
Where on earth does grace fit into this then?
Before meals. And sometimes, after.
Indeed. Gotta keep that grace, salvation and love stuff firmly in its place. Can't go wasting it on the wrong sort of people ... How does it go Enders:

Thank God I'm not a gay or a woman thinking about ordination ....

Pharisee.

Tubbs

[ 27. November 2012, 19:16: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think that to the general public, it is as if this has suddenly become a documentary.

Very good documentary clip - I think I know that vicar.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Thank God I'm not a gay or a woman thinking about ordination ....

See, I just go around thanking God that I can live my life in the safe and sure knowledge that I'll never ever be called upon to take on any kind of serious responsibility within the church. Being the wrong 'kind' of person to help out that fucked up organisation. [Yipee]
 
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Let's not have any thoughts on that. Ok? Start your own fucking thread.

CBA.
From the Urban Dictionary:


quote:
C BA is a severe form of laziness.

Often comparable to a psychological/medical condition. CBA is most common in teenagers around the age of 16-17 years of age.
Person 1: You coming?
Person 2: Nah, I've got a severe case of CBA.

For the edification of non-Brits following along. It also explains Glockenspiel's posting style.

Your put-downs are so gay ...
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Thanks for the link to the 'evil vicar' Tubbs, it is a danger that we all suffer; it would be quite interesting to do a similar one of a liberal faced with a banker... However since I am strongly committed to the value of the Alpha course FORMAT of open discussion, and have done / led a good number courses on that basis, that really doesn't reflect my attitude to searchers. People who claim to be in good standing with the church, but are ignoring the bits they find inconvenient... that's a different matter. But that's what this board is for [Big Grin]

OK Justinian, I have to agree that the Ebbesfleet website is inaccurate; the question is whether it is misleading. Does the legalese that precedes the famous clause actually mean that it is legitimate, in fact, for CofE hierarchs to take account of people's views on OoW in consider who to prefer? Or is this just a distraction that has no semantic content?

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you think the issue of gays and women is more important than the poor and needy (as Tubbs pointed out - which you ignored ) then I hope you leave the church sooner rather than later.

So you can leave us libruls to get on with the real gospel.

But that's probably too biblical a stance for you.

Whilst I'll agree with you over women, the gay issue has a far higher claim to being a matter of great concern. Paul comments:
quote:
Don’t you know that your bodies belong to the body of Christ? Should I take what belongs to Christ and join it to a prostitute? Never! 16 Don’t you know that when you join yourself to a prostitute, you become one with her in body? Scripture says, “The two will become one.” (Genesis 2:24) 17 But anyone who is joined to the Lord becomes one with him in spirit.

18 Keep far away from sexual sins. All the other sins a person commits are outside his body. But sexual sins are sins against one’s own body.

19 Don’t you know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit? The Spirit is in you. You have received him from God. You do not belong to yourselves. 20 Christ has paid the price for you. So use your bodies in a way that honors God.

1 Cor 6:15-20

Jesus, apart from his striking comments about lustful glances being on a level with adultery, the worst of offences to his listeners, reserves a special condemnation for those guilty of encouraging sexual indulgence:
quote:
But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.
Rev 2:20-22

But the core challenge is that the church is to call the world to repentance; that's what it's really about. That's the first summary of Jesus' teaching in the synoptic gospels. To the extent that our service of the poor becomes an excuse for not calling people to repentance, then we are as condemned as those to whom Jesus says:
quote:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Mt 7:21-23

And before you quote the ONE passage in the gospels that supports your view, may I remind you of the preceding passage:
quote:
“Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps[a] and went to meet the bridegroom.[b] 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ 10 And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.
Mt 25:1-12

It's easy to encourage people to be nice to one another, and for a period that will have a positive effect. But in the long term, because hearts haven't been changed by an encounter with Jesus, the forms of religion institutionalised in 'good works' will fade away and nothing will be left. We need the oil of the Spirit to be truly effective.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Oh fuck off.

But you wanted someone to say that didn't you.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
We need the oil of the Spirit to be truly effective.

What is this? Some kind of lube?

[ 27. November 2012, 21:27: Message edited by: QLib ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
That was a wee bit unnecessary, don't you think, Qlib? Take the poor bastard apart for the hapless expression of his unpopular beliefs, by all means - but mocking his phrasing to make a knob-joke about the Most Holy? Honestly, dude - you're better than that.
 
Posted by The Rhythm Methodist (# 17064) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But the core challenge is that the church is to call the world to repentance; that's what it's really about. That's the first summary of Jesus' teaching in the synoptic gospels. To the extent that our service of the poor becomes an excuse for not calling people to repentance, then we are as condemned as those to whom Jesus says:

I suppose there are a couple of ways of calling people to repentance: you could show them some genuine love - the natural product of your own spiritual transformation (perhaps one of the many ways that will be demonstrated is through service). You may find that this love wins you the right to be heard, and that you can then further express it by sharing the gospel message. Should they receive that, they will need to hear about repentance, and are likely to embrace it.

Or, you could just stand on a street corner - and scream at people through a megaphone. You could do the whole Westboro Baptist thing - spewing hatred, and demanding the world repents....in the name of a God they don't know, and who is so obviously absent from your own life.

Jesus told his followers to go out and make disciples. I wonder how you are getting on with that, ES?
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Ender's Shadow sez:
libruls [x6]

For fuck's sake. Who taught you how to spell? Glenn Beck, the same one who taught you how to think?

Evensong & Tubbs, you ought to knock it off, too. Mimicking him only encourages it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Everyone but especially Ender's Shadow for starting the tangent,

Please remember that homosexuality in all its ways and forms is a Dead Horse. Careful how you go here please.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

It's easy to encourage people to be nice to one another, and for a period that will have a positive effect. But in the long term, because hearts haven't been changed by an encounter with Jesus, the forms of religion institutionalised in 'good works' will fade away and nothing will be left. We need the oil of the Spirit to be truly effective.

But good works are a sign of the Spirit. Faith without works is dead. You've got your theology backwards there.

As for those forms of religion that institutionalized good works......they are what changed the world.

Ideas are all very well. But when the rubber hits the road, it's about the fruit of the Spirit. Or in more contemporary terms:

SHOW ME THE MONEY!
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whilst I'll agree with you over women, the gay issue has a far higher claim to being a matter of great concern.

(followed by endless Bible quotes)


Please excuse me, everyone. I have to go wash after reading this. ES has been prying in my bedroom again.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whilst I'll agree with you over women, the gay issue has a far higher claim to being a matter of great concern.

(followed by endless Bible quotes)


Please excuse me, everyone. I have to go wash after reading this. ES has been prying in my bedroom again.
I wouldn't worry too much orfeo. It should have read this way:

quote:
Whilst I'll agree with you over women, the adultery and fornication issue has a far higher claim to being a matter of great concern.

 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
OK Justinian, I have to agree that the Ebbesfleet website is inaccurate; the question is whether it is misleading. Does the legalese that precedes the famous clause actually mean that it is legitimate, in fact, for CofE hierarchs to take account of people's views on OoW in consider who to prefer? Or is this just a distraction that has no semantic content?

The legalese means that there are forms of discrimination that are a direct consequence of the act (and they cut both ways). Read the act and the measure in detail to get what most of them are.

quote:
It's easy to encourage people to be nice to one another, and for a period that will have a positive effect. But in the long term, because hearts haven't been changed by an encounter with Jesus, the forms of religion institutionalised in 'good works' will fade away and nothing will be left. We need the oil of the Spirit to be truly effective.
The changes in the heart you are talking about are ones which make people less charitable, less loving, and less nice, fading away is a preferable option.

As for the oil of the spirit, I think you've got it confused with Syrup of Ipecac.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whilst I'll agree with you over women, the gay issue has a far higher claim to being a matter of great concern.

(followed by endless Bible quotes)


Please excuse me, everyone. I have to go wash after reading this. ES has been prying in my bedroom again.
Oh please; isn't it blindingly obvious that early Christianity was very concerned with these issues. That YOU have decided that this is illegitimate leaves you humming loudly with your ears blocked. But we are probably outside the ruling about keeping to topic.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I wouldn't worry too much orfeo. It should have read this way:

quote:
Whilst I'll agree with you over women, the adultery and fornication issue has a far higher claim to being a matter of great concern.

Nice try, but for the most part the church still believes adultery and fornication to be wrong. The debate that is shredding the church is about the gay issue.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The debate that is shredding the church is about the gay issue.

not in Hell, it isn't. Knock off the dead horse tangent. NOW.

Comet,
Hellhost
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Oh please; isn't it blindingly obvious that early Christianity was very concerned with these issues.

Oh please; No.

And I have no intention of debating it with you. Been there. Whacked that around until chunks of bleeding horse flesh were splattered all over your pretty apron.

My only purpose here is to register my displeasure at the fact that you seem intent on taking the chunks, and whacking them again and again until you end up with a kind of paste or slurry that can be turned into a horse milkshake.

[ 28. November 2012, 04:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It brings all the evos to the yard...
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Oh please; isn't it blindingly obvious that early Christianity was very concerned with these issues.

Oh please; No.

And I have no intention of debating it with you. Been there. Whacked that around until chunks of bleeding horse flesh were splattered all over your pretty apron.

My only purpose here is to register my displeasure at the fact that you seem intent on taking the chunks, and whacking them again and again until you end up with a kind of paste or slurry that can be turned into a horse milkshake.

For anyone who does want to debate it, I've started a new thread.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It brings all the evos to the yard...

And they're like,
Its better than yours,
Damn right it's better than yours,
I can teach you,
But I'd have to charge


Which does seem to sum up their attitude and debate style. Although evos probably don't shake their booty quite as well as Kelis. [Biased] [Big Grin] [Razz]

Tubbs

[ 28. November 2012, 11:24: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nice try, but for the most part the church still believes adultery and fornication to be wrong.

An irony given the reason the CofE was created.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It brings all the evos to the yard...

That was totally my first thought too! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nice try, but for the most part the church still believes adultery and fornication to be wrong.

An irony given the reason the CofE was created.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I think that to the general public, it is as if this has suddenly become a documentary.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

This! This!! This!!!

Many a true word spoken in hyperbole ...
 
Posted by brackenrigg (# 9408) on :
 
The laity voted how they were told to by the parishes they represent.

Don't forget, the vote was on the wording of the proposed legislation, not whether there should be bishopesses yea or nay.
If the wording had been similar to that 20 years ago, the vote would have gone through.
If the feminist wing thought they could pull a fast one, they thought wrong.

Retail establishment for sale - ex-swimwear shop, good views of Tiber.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
The laity voted how they were told to by the parishes they represent.

Lay members aren't representatives of parishes, but of dicoeses.

(Which is perhaps where the rot sets in - the parish church is the fundamental unit of the Church of England and a diocese merely a collection of them, most people don't care about dioceses from one Christmas to the next, so they pay litte attention to who gets elected to anything there)

quote:

...not whether there should be bishopesses yea or nay.

We obviously speak different languages. In English using the word "bishopesses" means "I am a screamimng old misogynistic bastard who melts in horror when a woman dares enter my cosymen-only world". Obviously you didn't mean to say that.

quote:

If the feminist wing thought they could pull a fast one, they thought wrong.

On the other hand maybe you do just hate women. No sign of anything else here. Or on the other thread where you are in favour of putting them all in purdah.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the parish church is the fundamental unit of the Church of England

No. The diocese is the 'local church'. Parishes are representative of them.

It is the diocese that provides a parish priest or decides not to.

It is the diocese that sets policy and ;charges' quota/shares.

If parish churches want to declare UDI, then should become congregationalists and join the URC.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
The laity voted how they were told to by the parishes they represent.

Obviously not in the case of the Diocese of Winchester which voted for female bishops and the members of the House of the Laity voted against 6:1.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
The laity voted how they were told to by the parishes they represent.

Obviously not in the case of the Diocese of Winchester which voted for female bishops and the members of the House of the Laity voted against 6:1.
There you go. They are representatives, not delegates.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
... bishopesses ...

You don't learn do you?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]If parish churches want to declare UDI, then should become congregationalists and join the URC.

You never know - if they are the right sort of people, the baptists might (just) let them in.

But only after dunking them first.

[ 28. November 2012, 20:37: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That was a wee bit unnecessary, don't you think, Qlib? Take the poor bastard apart for the hapless expression of his unpopular beliefs, by all means - but mocking his phrasing to make a knob-joke about the Most Holy? Honestly, dude - you're better than that.

No, I'm not.

But .... the Most Holy is one thing and the language of religiosity is another - let's not confuse them. I just happen to feel that the 'oil of the Spirit' is a phrase we can well do without. I know some churches use oil sacramentally - but then that's their oil, not the Spirit's oil. As metaphors go, oil in my lamp (Keep me burnin'!) is OK, but unctuousness is not a characteristic I want associated with the Holy Spirit for all kinds of reasons.

Though, since it appears that - as far as some people are concerned - we might as well all be worshipping giant stone phalluses (phalli?), maybe a bit of lube would be welcome.

While I'm here, I'll take the opportunity to say that the argument that 'we just don't know whether it's OK for women to be priests' strikes me as pretty thin, given everything else The Church™ claims to know.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That was a wee bit unnecessary, don't you think, Qlib? Take the poor bastard apart for the hapless expression of his unpopular beliefs, by all means - but mocking his phrasing to make a knob-joke about the Most Holy? Honestly, dude - you're better than that.

No, I'm not.

So how do you understand the oil referred to in that parable? Or do you just ignore it as uncomfortable, as you accuse conservatives of ignoring the one a bit later because it suits your agenda?
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
Don't forget, the vote was on the wording of the proposed legislation, not whether there should be bishopesses yea or nay.

My my, look what the cat sicked up.

I bet you thought we'd forgotten about this

Bye bye

Spike
SoF Admin

[ 29. November 2012, 05:41: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the parish church is the fundamental unit of the Church of England

No. The diocese is the 'local church'. Parishes are representative of them.

It is the diocese that provides a parish priest or decides not to.

It is the diocese that sets policy and ;charges' quota/shares.

If parish churches want to declare UDI, then should become congregationalists and join the URC.

Of course Evangelicals have always denied that the diocese is the local church. They base their opposition on a literal reading of Article 19:
quote:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same
The 39 Articles

Given that ordination is not a sacrament according to the church of England, all the 'sacraments' are done by the local priest. And of course quota is voluntary, so that's irrelevant to the argument in strict definitional terms.

Where this gets interesting is Leo's point: 'It is the diocese that provides a parish priest or decides not to.' Historically this was not the case; the patron appointed and the endowment of the parish provided the stipend of the clergyman. Pastoral reorganisation measures and the concept of 'priest in charge' have transferred that power to some extent to the bishop - though the completion of a pastoral reorganisation does require more than the decision of a bishop, and a priest in charge transforms into an incumbent unless issues are resolved within 5 years, or the p-i-c agrees to an extension.

However my point is that overall it is the parish that is the local church in the actual ecclesiology of the CofE, a reality reflected in the freehold and patronage system; most parishes have someone other than the bishop as their patron, though often let dioceses in on the appointment process as a matter of convenience in these days of open advertising.

In practice this is an area where there has been a major power grab by the bishops over the past 60 years. To some extent this was necessary: the decline in congregations and the value of endowments has made it necessary for someone to make decisions as to how to manage the decline. But unfortunately in practice this has not been done in a way that has inspired confidence with the less fashionable perspective in the CofE (A/C and ConEvo) often seeing their parishes homogenised into the harmless mush that is the reality of most CofE parishes. So overall we shouldn't be surprised if it's those usual suspects who are dubious about the prospects for the 'code of practice' - and as representatives of the local church, have the right to be so.

Also taking a longer historical perspective, it is true that the dioceses of the church in the first 300 years were about the size of a good sized modern parish. So in terms of functional reality, the 'bishops' of the first ecumenical council would correspond to several priests from the average deanery today...
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That was a wee bit unnecessary, don't you think, Qlib? Take the poor bastard apart for the hapless expression of his unpopular beliefs, by all means - but mocking his phrasing to make a knob-joke about the Most Holy? Honestly, dude - you're better than that.

No, I'm not.

So how do you understand the oil referred to in that parable?
It's a parable. We don't often talk about the Broom of the Spirit (lost coin)
quote:
Or do you just ignore it as uncomfortable, as you accuse conservatives of ignoring the one a bit later because it suits your agenda?

It's not uncomfortable, it's just naff, particularly when combined with oily religiosity. Figurative language has to be judged by how it works. Light, wind and water? Fine. Oil? Not so much. In the modern age, it has a variety of unfortunate resonances. So - if this is what floats your boat - you can get away with it in the context of a religious ceremony where it's embedded with a whole wodge of archaic language and imagery - it doesn't work so well on a bulletin board IMHO.

Where does the agenda come in? It's this - the accidents of life in 0-century Palestine have been mixed up with the essentials. Of course Christ was a man - if he was a woman, he would have been locked up or stoned to death before he even got going. Would a 12-year old girl have been allowed to engage in discussion with the elders in the temple? It would have been unthinkable.

Let's leave on one side the questions about the credibility of the evidence suggesting that the early Church may have thought the unthinkable in terms of women's ministry, It remains the case that people who propose that something that was unthinkable twenty-odd centuries ago should still be unthinkable now, just look stupid.

As others have said - Christ was circumcised. Let's have circumcision for all male priests. The entire body of the faithful should refuse modern medicine, dentistry and opthalmic care. Ridiculous, isn't it? Who gets to decide which aspects of 0-century life are merely accidental and which are essential? The Church. And, if you want to discuss agendas, just look at whose convenience and what power structures the decisions of the Church serve.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
If we are to insist on sticking to the particularities of Jesus life, then yes it gets really silly.

Jesus was male but he was also a first century palestinian Jew....
 
Posted by Crusty (# 17454) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by brackenrigg:
Don't forget, the vote was on the wording of the proposed legislation, not whether there should be bishopesses yea or nay.

My my, look what the cat sicked up.

I bet you thought we'd forgotten about this

Bye bye

Spike
SoF Admin

As someone who has followed the forum for a few years and not registered I thought this might make it worthwhile.

Isn't it a little unforgiving to ban someone for life for saying one wrong word after two years of managing to stay within this rule? Jesus taught his disciples to forgive seventy times seven and preached forgiveness and new life to all. Didn't he say to pray for those that persecute you? Paul mentions that love keeps no record of wrongs. Would an apology from this man or woman be a forgivable thing?

Sorry if this is out-of-line from a new person but my minister always told me to be equipped with God's Word and speak truth to power. I didn't feel I could stand back and watch a forum ostensibly based on Christian principles be so unforgiving.

God bless - and I'm sorry again if I stepped out of line.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Welcome to the Ship Crusty, thanks for signing up and I hope you enjoy your voyage.

The decision you refer to was made by one of the Ship's Admins, and any questions regarding decisions by Hosts (like me) and Admins (like Spike) have to be made in The Styx.

If you could post your query/complaint there, we'll overlook your post here.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

ps: please have a look at the Ship's Ten Commandments and the Guidelines for each board.
 
Posted by Crusty (# 17454) on :
 
Fair enough. Thanks for the welcome!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course Evangelicals have always denied that the diocese is the local church. They base their opposition on a literal reading of Article 19:
quote:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same
The 39 Articles
I don't think we base our ideas of the Church on the Articles so much as recognise that that Article is itself based on the Bible.

But yes, what you said is true. In practice the Church of England is and always has been built parishes, and to some extent that goes back to before the Reformation.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course Evangelicals have always denied that the diocese is the local church. They base their opposition on a literal reading of Article 19:
quote:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same
The 39 Articles
I don't think we base our ideas of the Church on the Articles so much as recognise that that Article is itself based on the Bible.

But yes, what you said is true. In practice the Church of England is and always has been built parishes, and to some extent that goes back to before the Reformation.

Furthermore, 'a literal reading' of Article 19 would suggest that the Church is an exclusively male gathering.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Of course Evangelicals have always denied that the diocese is the local church. They base their opposition on a literal reading of Article 19:
quote:
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same
The 39 Articles
I don't think we base our ideas of the Church on the Articles so much as recognise that that Article is itself based on the Bible.

But yes, what you said is true. In practice the Church of England is and always has been built parishes, and to some extent that goes back to before the Reformation.

quote:
[I]nstitutionally speaking, the [Anglican] Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law. ++Rowan

 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Bristol Synod

And so it goes.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Bristol Synod

And so it goes.

But what does 'Great Urgency' mean in the CofE?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
That it will be addressed straight after the clashes in the flower rota are resolved?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Bristol Synod

And so it goes.

I'm really uncomfortable with this. Whatever way it had gone, I'd be really uncomfortable.

As for the attempted coup of Dr Giddings as Chair of the House of Laity, that is dire.

Thurible
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
In 1992 General Synod voted for women to become priests by 2 votes and it was deemed to be the work of the Holy Spirit.

In 2012 General Synod said, "not like this" to women bishops by 6 votes and it was deemed be a travesty of justice.

Such are the dangers of subjectivism.

The Church should be consistent, not just insistent.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In 1992 General Synod voted for women to become priests by 2 votes and it was deemed to be the work of the Holy Spirit.

In 2012 General Synod said, "not like this" to women bishops by 6 votes and it was deemed be a travesty of justice.

Such are the dangers of subjectivism.

The Church should be consistent, not just insistent.

I made just this point to a colleague this morning. My problem with the vote (rather than the principle) is that the vote in the house of laity was so very unrepresentative of the position in the dioceses. I haven't done the maths, but if the diocesan reps in General Synod had voted in a way which better represented the vote in their diocesan synods*, I'm pretty sure that the measure would have passed. I appreciate the difference between representatives and delegates, but this gap between General and Diocesan Synods is (IMHO) where a great deal of the bad feeling generated by this vote originates. At the very least the 42:2 diocesan vote has given very convenient ammunition to those who object to the outcome at General Synod.

anne

*so that in a diocese with 5 representatives on GS which voted 60% in favour at Diocesan Synod, the representatives voted 3 for, 2 against.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But what does 'Great Urgency' mean in the CofE?

They'll try and get to it before Prince William's child comes to the throne.
 
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
In 1992 General Synod voted for women to become priests by 2 votes and it was deemed to be the work of the Holy Spirit.

In 2012 General Synod said, "not like this" to women bishops by 6 votes and it was deemed be a travesty of justice.

Such are the dangers of subjectivism.

The Church should be consistent, not just insistent.

I made just this point to a colleague this morning. My problem with the vote (rather than the principle) is that the vote in the house of laity was so very unrepresentative of the position in the dioceses. I haven't done the maths, but if the diocesan reps in General Synod had voted in a way which better represented the vote in their diocesan synods*, I'm pretty sure that the measure would have passed. I appreciate the difference between representatives and delegates, but this gap between General and Diocesan Synods is (IMHO) where a great deal of the bad feeling generated by this vote originates. At the very least the 42:2 diocesan vote has given very convenient ammunition to those who object to the outcome at General Synod.

anne

*so that in a diocese with 5 representatives on GS which voted 60% in favour at Diocesan Synod, the representatives voted 3 for, 2 against.

But given that many of the diocescan synods added a motion calling for a provision for opponents, and the general synod minority deemed the proposal was unacceptable, then it's not as simple as you are suggesting.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But what does 'Great Urgency' mean in the CofE?

They'll try and get to it before Prince William's child comes to the throne.
That and the "Flower Rota" question, as mentioned by Chesterbelloc.
 
Posted by anne (# 73) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

But given that many of the diocescan synods added a motion calling for a provision for opponents, and the general synod minority deemed the proposal was unacceptable, then it's not as simple as you are suggesting.

Oh no, not simple at all, I do appreciate that. But I was trying to separate out some of the different sources of the pain and anger that have emerged since the General Synod vote.

For myself, I think that bitching about the narrowness of the vote in the House of Laity misses the point. It's not helpful to hunt around for 6 people we can blame for 'doing it wrong.' And, as has been said, when votes have gone narrowly in a direction we approve of, we don't go on about it. It certainly adds to the frustration that the vote was so close, but, well, thems the rules.

I think that there is a more solid basis for the anger that I am hearing from members of congregations, deanery and diocesan synods, that their voice has been ignored. They heard the arguments, they listened and read the texts and they (the members of synods) voted. And then, after all that, their GS reps ignored them. There's real anger and pain there. Of course, the people I talk to mostly (not exclusively) support the consecration of women to the episcopate, so I may be overestimating how widespread this anger is.

There is a whole other discussion to be had about the motion for provision which was added at diocesan and deanery synods. For example, when an identically worded motion has been passed to 44 separate synods for debate and votes so that it can return to General Synod, what is anyone doing adding extra wording? Possibly I am simply cross here that the 'opposition' were so well organised locally and nationally. My own frustration at deanery level was largely caused by listening to the eloquent speeches and watching the principled voting against the consecration of women as bishops of members of the house of clergy whom I had never seen or heard at any deanery event before or since.

But no, it's not simple, I agree.

anne
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
On reflection, I do think that the House of Bishops have some blame for what went on.

When the matter went out to the Diocesan Synods, that should have been the end of it. No more tinkering or amending, unless diocesan synods clearly and comprehensively indicated that something needed to be changed. They didn't. They voted 42 out of 44 in favour of what was being offered.

Now that SHOULD have had an immense moral weight. It should then have become nigh on impossible for people to consider voting the measure down in General Synod. But instead, the House of Bishops decided to try and tinker yet further - disastrously so as it turned out.

But whether the dreaded 5c clause was passed or not is actually beside the point. The mere fact that the bishops were still tinkering with the measure AFTER diocesan synods had voted on it meant that everyone else had the implicit permission to push for additional changes and amendments. And so the moral weight behind the overwhelming diocesan votes for the measure was dissipated.

I thought then and think even more now that the bishops' amendments were ill-advised. They just were not needed and all they did was say to those opposing the measure "things are still up for grabs." What the bishops should have been saying clearly is "this is what is on offer. There is overwhelming diocesan approval for it and so nothing more will be added to it."

My suspicion is that, had this been done, enough of the no-voters would have felt that it was their duty to honour the diocesan votes and would have voted yes instead.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Plus those Bishops whose houses’ of laity were clearly “influenced” toward a certain direction should have shown both greater leadership in ensuring the elections were more hotly contested AND let their brother bishops know that there was a sizeable chunk of “no” votes coming from their diocese (though I guess not doing the first makes doing the second shamefully unlikely).

A train wreck, a plague on all three of their houses.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
I don't really understand how anyone who fully believes in the 'headship' argument could accept having women in the General Synod. Perhaps that is how Synod will go.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Synod doesn't have teaching authority would be my guess.

Thurible
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
And no one has any control over the use of the word "Christian"; - Voice, - Union, - Democratic Party, are examples.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Synod doesn't have teaching authority would be my guess.

Thurible

Maybe they're allowed to vote if their husbands are there too.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Not a great parody, but maybe worth a read.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
A pretty decent parody, I would say. Thanks
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0