Originally posted by fletcher christian:
words fail
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:and
Ms Southern wrote to the Archbishops to complain about their recent intervention in an amendment to go to General Synod next month, which urges “co-ordinate” bishops on the Church rather than accepting women bishops as entirely equal to male bishops.
quote:(I'm quoting chunks because the article requires registration for reading - free, though)
The Church’s attempt to square the circle of women’s ordination versus traditionalists, including the solution last time of flying bishops — introduced when women priests were ordained — has been “extremely dysfunctional, cripples the ministry of women, in some diocese more than others, and has done nothing to bring about greater communion, but instead fosters division and discrimination and continues to damage the Church”, she wrote.
quote:Can anyone suggest why the Church in England is not capable of accepting women as priests, while many other countries have been able to deal with this for a generation or more? There is also the question as to why the process in England involves such convolutions as "flying bishops" and "co-ordinate" bishops, which seem to make things worse.
It is unprecedented in its open attack on such senior figures within the Church and gives an indication of how the authority of the Archbishops is being undermined by the endless quarrelling over women’s ordination and homosexuality.
quote:Answering as a non-Anglican, the problem is that some evangelicals think that women shouldn't preach a sermon, while some Anglo-Catholics think that women shouldn't preside over communion, and that the C of E is broad enough to have plenty of both. The C of E is also in the awkward position of being an increasingly evangelical established church in a liberal, secular society.
I'll be interested to see what responses you get from British shipmates. To me, it's surprising given the C of E is the established church of a country that has had females both as monarchs and a prime minister - and, indeed, female monarchs appoint the ABC and are the head of the C of E, are they not? So is it a sacramental issue, then? Do people believe, as I heard (second-hand) someone say, "a woman cannot make the Mass"?
quote:That's interesting. Our experience in the C of S is that the move to the right theologically is vastly more salient in our ministry than in the membership - which is becoming polarized. Opposition to women's ordination, to the ministry and the eldership, which seemed to be disappearing, is certainly being reinforced in small sections of the Church which are a vocal network, but it's definitely a minority position, and none of the theological justifications really correspond to Anglican ones, except where there's an evagelical crossover.
The C of E is also in the awkward position of being an increasingly evangelical established church in a liberal, secular society.
quote:It seems that the opponents of women bishops, and of women priests, would answer yes to both your questions.
Originally posted by churchgeek:
So is it a sacramental issue, then? Do people believe, as I heard (second-hand) someone say, "a woman cannot make the Mass"?
quote:I do not see how such a person can stay in the Church of England even if they are allowed a permanent church within a church as now proposed. Here's another Anglo Catholic who apparently agrees: :
There is no such thing as a woman bishop. She has no potestas ordinis or spiritual and pastoral care to delegate. She is not a bishop; that is our point.
quote:I don't see how it can be right or even politic to say that any woman bishop for the indefinite future must have a male bishop sitting next to her to keep people happy who don't accept that she is in Holy Orders at all, when it isn't going to keep them happy.
Which catholic bishops are happily going to sit in a college of bishops where there are women. Surely one of the principal arguments catholics have made is that our bishops must be in communon. How can they be if they do not believe they or the people they ordain are bishops. It reinforces the evangelical argument that it is about maleness, but does nothing to help catholics.
For many, only a separate province where there is some form of separation can retain the integrity of catholics within the Church of England. I think the Archbishops recognise that too, but it seems now it is all too late. Many catholics will say 'Roll on the ordinariate'. It may well however help some of those who stay for whatever reason to receive the 'terminal care' they need.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Ah, scripture. In this case, that word refers to the ramblings of one highly bigoted man that, because they agreed with the prejudices of another bunch of men who called themselves a Council, managed to get included in the Bible.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I daresay the argument, Yorick, isn't that they are 'inferior' at preaching but that they shouldn't do it in the first place due to apparent scriptural proscriptions upon the practice.
quote:The trouble is Enoch just ignoring the Flying Bishops etc doesn't solve the problem.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Speaking as a British shipmate, and a member of the CofE, most of us ignore the flying bishop wing and just get on with life without worrying too much about them.
On the other hand, those who go on about it, are a bit like Devalera and the treaty, and look what that did to Michael Collins.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
)
quote:This is I think the weakness of all the conservatives now - in which I include the GAFCON separatists in Nigeria and elsewhere, the conservative evangelicals in Anglican Mainstream rebranding themselves (for example in Chelmsford) as Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, with its own GAFCON separatist implications, and the conservative Anglo Catholics who say they prefer to go to Rome, via the new Anglican Ordinariate, than play any part in the Church of England as a whole unless they are given their own church within a church.
Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:
The trouble is Enoch just ignoring the Flying Bishops etc doesn't solve the problem.
I understand Rowan will be speaking to the Methodist Conference about the Methodist Anglican Covenant. There have been posts about that historically so I'm not going into that. But this will never come to anything until the CofE sort out the issue of women.
There have been women ministers in the Methodist Church for about 40 years and the new President of Conference (the head of the Methodist Church for a year) is a woman. Alison Tomlin.
quote:This is nonsense. Of course, it was obvious that the move to open the episcopate to women would create dissatisfaction and unhappiness among traditionalists - some would inevitably have left. But the Act of Synod proved to be extraordinarily effective in pacifying the Church of England during the 1990s. So the logic would suggest that we now offer further and greater provision to retain the traditionalist catholic contribution to the CoE. It turns out that the so-called 'Broad Church' which you talk about is much less capable of offering something imaginative and generous than the Archbishops of Canterbury and York.
Originally posted by badman:
The problem is that there is no pleasing them. Huge concessions have been made to them. But they always bank the concessions and ask for everything else as well. Often they make their requests as demands, coupled with threats (of separation) and abuse (we are two churches, we are two religions, you are not Christians, you are not obeying the plain meaning of scripture).
If there is no pleasing them, what is the point of suffering the damage caused by making the concessions in the first place?
quote:Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.
quote:I agree it's a fudge. It's the constant imputation of bad faith that riled me about Ms Southern's letter.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ricardus, your link is the biggest fudge I think I've ever read. Apart from the fact that 1998 was a bit of a fudge, this move perpetuates an inherited two tier system in the C of E. How can that be in any way good? Basically - as I read it - what is being suggested is that the ordination of women as Bishops is now acceptable to the Anglican communion, but for those who are in the same church who refuse to accept their validity, we will accommodate you further. Good news for everyone sounds to me like good news for no one
quote:Why is it necessarily bad? If it keeps the contribution of as many people as possible in the CoE then surely it's a good thing? I used to think that 'fudges', and 'two-tier' systems fell short of the ideal. But then I realised that everything falls short of the ideal.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Ricardus, your link is the biggest fudge I think I've ever read. Apart from the fact that 1998 was a bit of a fudge, this move perpetuates an inherited two tier system in the C of E. How can that be in any way good?
quote:Well the ordination of women bishops is not acceptable to the whole of the Anglican Communion but I think I get what you're saying. Did you ever read the passage about going the extra mile?
Basically - as I read it - what is being suggested is that the ordination of women as Bishops is now acceptable to the Anglican communion, but for those who are in the same church who refuse to accept their validity, we will accommodate you further. Good news for everyone sounds to me like good news for no one
quote:Right.... so those against the ordination of women (who have already been pandered to) get to continue to disagree with a passed vote at synod and effectively ignore the will of the church. They are permitted to continually state publicly that - even though they are a part of a church that has formally accepted the ordination of women - that they will refuse to accept their validity no matter what, and that the majority of the church is clearly deluded and heretical and not 'real'. they get to continue to empire build and mount a loud voiced resistance and are empowered by the knowledge that ABC will always listen to them and meet their needs.
And why is it good news for no-one? We will have women bishops and perhaps be able to avoid a horrible split. Sounds pretty good to me.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Well, I certainly don't agree with everything Synod says and does. Should I leave because of that? There is a role for conscience within Anglicanism.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Right.... so those against the ordination of women (who have already been pandered to) get to continue to disagree with a passed vote at synod and effectively ignore the will of the church.
quote:Yep, that sounds to me like the Church of England as I have always known it.
They are permitted to continually state publicly that - even though they are a part of a church that has formally accepted the ordination of women - that they will refuse to accept their validity no matter what, and that the majority of the church is clearly deluded and heretical and not 'real'. they get to continue to empire build and mount a loud voiced resistance and are empowered by the knowledge that ABC will always listen to them and meet their needs.
quote:Phew, take a breath! Women's ordination wouldn't have passed in 1992 without some provision for traditionalists, and it certainly wouldn't have passed in Parliament without the promise to maintain as broad a church as possible by making further provision. ++Rowan and ++John have the job of ensuring that there's some continuity with that decision and with the promises made that there are two 'integrities' within the Church of England. I think the cost experienced by women in ministry of our generous and gracious decisions are much exaggerated. There are no 'no-go' areas for women priests and thousands of women are serving the CoE very happily and effectively.
On the other side you have women who are called to ministry in a church that has formally accepted the validity of their ministry, but they have to work alongside clergy and Bishop's who approve of that ministry because there are those who believe they are invalid. They are made to feel like second class citizens of the church, as if in some way smug clergy who talk about the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as long as it's in tune with their thinking) and reject their colleagues ministry are Tesco finest, whereas ordained women are yellow pack in the bargain bin, gone past their best before date.
quote:We just don't think that you're a bad person in the Church of England just because you have problems with the 'will of the church'. But let me explain again, it's good news because we get women bishops, and it's also good news because some effort is being made to help opponents remain part of the Church of England.
Explain how this is 'good news' to anyone? It's pathetic, deeply embarrassing and, most importantly, a rejection of will of the church, all supported by the head of same church.
quote:I think you might be better suited to another Church with a Papacy and a magisterium. Clearly you don't realise that Anglicanism has for the most part existed as an experiment in keeping diametrically opposed people in the same Church. The sort of unanimity you seem to require is just not 'Anglican'.
Frankly, a split would have been better. A better move still would be the self removal of those who so clearly reject the will of the church in which they exist.
quote:Not according to a good proportion of the church. Should we ignore those people, those Christians? Are we and they part of different kingdoms of God?
On the other side you have women who are called to ministry[/QB]
quote:Bullshit
I think the cost experienced by women in ministry of our generous and gracious decisions are much exaggerated. There are no 'no-go' areas for women priests and thousands of women are serving the CoE very happily and effectively.
quote:You have wilfully misunderstood me. The Anglican church does not hold absolutely everything in diametrically opposed tensions! My issue here is that the community of the church has already been asked to undergo a process of reflection and discernment and put it to a vote in a way that can be as democratic as possible. Some (a minority) are refusing to listen to this community of faith because it chose not to cast the vote in their favour. Being an anglican also means having a willingness to compromise and a knowledge of finding faith in community. It means that sometimes we will disagree with one another, but will work for the good of the church and community of faith and not for our own private empires of conscience. Anyone ordained in the anglican church already knows that this is the system into which they are ordained, but instead some are choosing to ignore it and forget that the vows they made at ordination require that they are in service to the church and it's people. The 'tension' of which you speak in the anglican church is finding a middle road. Sometimes this means that we have to forgo our own personal desires. This notion has been completely lost in this debate, but many would do well to be reminded that 'it's not all about you'
I think you might be better suited to another Church with a Papacy and a magisterium. Clearly you don't realise that Anglicanism has for the most part existed as an experiment in keeping diametrically opposed people in the same Church. The sort of unanimity you seem to require is just not 'Anglican'.
quote:The problem is, though, that the High Anglican objection to women's ordination is based precisely upon the fact that Church Tradition has always taught against women priests.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:I think you might be better suited to another Church with a Papacy and a magisterium. Clearly you don't realise that Anglicanism has for the most part existed as an experiment in keeping diametrically opposed people in the same Church. The sort of unanimity you seem to require is just not 'Anglican'.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:Frankly, a split would have been better. A better move still would be the self removal of those who so clearly reject the will of the church in which they exist.
quote:Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.
quote:I think you might want to rephrase that as it couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.
quote:Precisely where is the bullshit in this paragraph? 'Cost much exagerated', 'no-go areas', or the happiness and effectiveness of women's ministry?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:Bullshit
I think the cost experienced by women in ministry of our generous and gracious decisions are much exaggerated. There are no 'no-go' areas for women priests and thousands of women are serving the CoE very happily and effectively.
quote:I assure you the Church of England does (unless of course you're saying that the Church of England isn't Anglican). In my own small parish church there is one woman who believes that the Gospel of St Thomas is superior to the canonical gospels and she's our PCC secretary. There are churches which believe diametrically opposed things about the Eucharist and all sorts of other things.
You have wilfully misunderstood me. The Anglican church does not hold absolutely everything in diametrically opposed tensions!
quote:I just don't see there's a problem with this disagreement. We're still in what has been called a period of 'reception' it simply isn't over yet. That's why the CoE has agreed that there are two 'integrities' and that is why the Archbishops are seeking to make further and more generous provision for traditionalists.
My issue here is that the community of the church has already been asked to undergo a process of reflection and discernment and put it to a vote in a way that can be as democratic as possible. Some (a minority) are refusing to listen to this community of faith because it chose not to cast the vote in their favour.
quote:That could be said of many positions of principled dissent in the Church of England - such as the partnered gay candidate who knows full well the teaching of the church but still goes ahead with ordination.
Anyone ordained in the anglican church already knows that this is the system into which they are ordained, but instead some are choosing to ignore it and forget that the vows they made at ordination require that they are in service to the church and it's people.
quote:I didn't speak of 'tension' as though Anglicanism was some grand narrative, synthesis or via media. It's nothing more than an historic accident in which diametrically opposed parties and traditions find themselves. Most of the time they squabble and ignore each other.
The 'tension' of which you speak in the anglican church is finding a middle road. Sometimes this means that we have to forgo our own personal desires. This notion has been completely lost in this debate, but many would do well to be reminded that 'it's not all about you'
quote:Yes, you're quite right. They know it's not all about them because the church has already voted on this matter and the majority voted for it.
BTW, those who advocate women bishops also have to remember your final line: 'It's not all about you'.
quote:That is incredibly naive
We're still in what has been called a period of 'reception' it simply isn't over yet.
quote:Really? It holds 'absolutely everything in diametrically opposed views'? What is synod for in your view? Why would people even bother to cast a vote? Why is the community of faith even consulted if this is the case?
I assure you the Church of England does
quote:What you said was so dismissive and ridiculous thats its hard even to know where to start. 'There are no, no-go areas for women' Yeeees, that's why we are in a discussion about women and the episcopate, that's why it went to synod, thats why despite it being passed there, some feel the need to continue to declare them invalid. I bet the same people who hold such views would agree with you and welcome them with open arms to their parish and altar....or maybe not.
Precisely where is the bullshit in this paragraph? 'Cost much exagerated', 'no-go areas', or the happiness and effectiveness of women's ministry?
quote:Because the extra mile is never enough. At some point, you just have to tell them to suck it up, princess.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is it that Rowan is repeatedly criticised for going the extra mile to try and do anything to prevent this?
quote:Democracy does not come first to my mind when I think about what is essential to the Church.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:Yes, you're quite right. They know it's not all about them because the church has already voted on this matter and the majority voted for it.
BTW, those who advocate women bishops also have to remember your final line: 'It's not all about you'.
quote:That is incredibly naive
[QUOTE]
We're still in what has been called a period of 'reception' it simply isn't over yet.
quote:Naive perhaps, but it is supposed to be the 'official' view of the Church of England - reached by Synodical voting which you seem to set great store by.
quote:It's a strange phrase, holding 'absolutely everything in diametrically opposed views'. I would simply say that there are diametrically opposed views in the Church of England and I'm not going to engage in a witchhunt to get rid of anybody.
Really? It holds 'absolutely everything in diametrically opposed views'? What is synod for in your view? Why would people even bother to cast a vote? Why is the community of faith even consulted if this is the case?
quote:That much is clear
Democracy does not come first to my mind when I think about what is essential to the Church.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Would that be because the community of faith doesn't matter to you? Despots don't normally have happy lives and tend not to be remembered favourably in history.
You ask what Synod is for? I've come to the view that it's to keep people busy who otherwise might do untold damage in parishes.
quote:True, but the majority of people (the same majority who voted for the ordination of women, did not expect this situation to go on indefinitely; neither did they expect clergy in the service of the church to begin empire building.
Naive perhaps, but it is supposed to be the 'official' view of the Church of England - reached by Synodical voting which you seem to set great store by.
quote:words fail
All clergy moan all the time about their experience of ministry. I'm glad to see women are no different in this regard.
quote:Thank God for that. I was wondering how long this exchange would go on.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
words fail
quote:This is true.
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:Because the extra mile is never enough. At some point, you just have to tell them to suck it up, princess.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why is it that Rowan is repeatedly criticised for going the extra mile to try and do anything to prevent this?
quote:How is it inaccurate,. The C of E House of Bishops Issues in Human Sexuality is the standard - all ordinands are asked to sign up to it before they even go to a BAP.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I think you might want to rephrase that as it couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.
quote:As far as I'm aware, ordinands aren't asked to "sign up" to anything. I certainly wasn't, and I was ordained the year after Issues (only ever intended as an interim document) was published.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:How is it inaccurate,. The C of E House of Bishops Issues in Human Sexuality is the standard - all ordinands are asked to sign up to it before they even go to a BAP.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I think you might want to rephrase that as it couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.
Large parts of the Communion do not accept homosexual bishops or priests, or lay people even.
The fact that people lie about their sexuality is a different matter.
quote:Because they have girl cooties?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can anyone suggest why the Church in England is not capable of accepting women as priests [?]
quote:
Bishop Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan, asked the stumper, “The Church of England remains in full communion and ecumenical dialogue with the Old Catholic Church, which blesses same-sex unions, and the Church of Sweden, which has a partnered lesbian bishop and blesses same-sex marriages. Given this fact, how are we to reconcile the removal of Episcopal Church members from ecumenical bodies?
LONG silence ensued. He looked at Wendell like a calf looks at a new gate. He clearly didn't know where to go.
Canon Kearon hemmed and hawed and finally said that there are different types of full communion and that the sticking point is being able to represent the Communion vis a vis faith & order. Wendell stressed the point of who the Church of England is in communion with, but Canon Kearon had nothing more of substance to say.
quote:Based on a majority vote at synod you want to throw all those people both lay and clerical who don't support the ordination of women out of the Church of England? I don't think that is a good idea. If you don't want to throw them out, you have to find a way to accommodate them.
originally posted by fletcher_christian:
What you said was so dismissive and ridiculous thats its hard even to know where to start. 'There are no, no-go areas for women' Yeeees, that's why we are in a discussion about women and the episcopate, that's why it went to synod, thats why despite it being passed there, some feel the need to continue to declare them invalid. I bet the same people who hold such views would agree with you and welcome them with open arms to their parish and altar....or maybe not.
Have you actually listened to the experience of women in ministry in the C of E? Most of it isn't pretty. Yes, there are many who are happy in their ministry in supportive parishes. There are also vindictive laity and clergy who make their lives a misery and who intentionally attempt to dismantle their ministry for the sake of their 'cause'. Take the time to listen to them and you might hear something rather different from the nonsense you pedal here. The generous and gracious decision of which you speak is that the C of E will continue to accommodate those who see women's ministry as utterly invalid. Very affirming that! Boosts confidence no end knowing you have the support of other clergy!
quote:That's my bishop!
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Bishop Wendell Gibbs, Bishop of Michigan
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Where did you read that?
Based on a majority vote at synod you want to throw all those people both lay and clerical who don't support the ordination of women out of the Church of England?
quote:Indeed this is the point - a promise was made at the time of the vote for the ordination of women to the priesthood that the opponents' beliefs would be respected within the CofE. All the opponents of Women Bishops are asking for is that promise to be acted upon - and amazingly enough my church seems to be trying to do so. Now on the whole I don't trust politicians - either those with dog collars or those without - so it is a pleasant surprise to see some actually trying to live up to a promise that was made. It can well be argued that it shouldn't have been made - that Synod should have accepted another failed vote instead. But it didn't. It made a promise, and on that basis the OOW went ahead. So quit snivelling about what's in the past and work with what has been promised - or alternatively never, ever, make a promise to anyone again, because we know that your word is valueless because you are happy to call for others' promises to be ignored when they are inconvenient.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This is simply one of these historical anomalies. The priesting of women would not have passed synod as easily without provision for dissenters, and it likely would not have been approved by the Commons without strong provisions. It was theoretically unworkable then, but was accepted by proponents as a way of getting their objective, sort of, and by dissenters as a way of keeping their objective, sort of. While ecclesiologically illogical, it did respect the principle of two integrities, which everyone said they liked at the time-- one would like to assume that they were honest.
If there had been a sell-by date, it would not have likely gone through. Proponents at the time did not insist on an expiry date or a fixed term, and this is the logical outcome.
At this point, the majority decides if they will honour obligations they would rather not have made/accepted, or if they won't. Either both sides will suffer, or one will, with the other triumphing. +++Rowan, as is often his lot these days, is trying to square the circle.
quote:That's a problem.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So quit snivelling about what's in the past and work with what has been promised - or alternatively never, ever, make a promise to anyone again, because we know that your word is valueless because you are happy to call for others' promises to be ignored when they are inconvenient.
quote:Because the parallel is with a treaty between nations or marriage vows, not the decisions of a parliament. The deal was explicitly made to the sceptics that the minority view would have a continuing role in the CofE. On that basis people built their lives and worked out their commitment to the CofE in all sorts of ways. One clear example of this is those who are opposed to the OOW who were willing to go ahead and be ordained after the vote; they committed themselves to the CofE because of the promise. And there are still people being trained on that basis. If you now change the rules, you are morally obliged to fully compensate them for your breach of promise. The level of payment should be the equivalent of a full stipend and vicarage till retirement and a full pension afterwards - not the half hearted compensation package offered first time round. And of course all those laity who were foolish enough to trust the promise have a right to the return of all the money they've given to the church since then. That's the only appropriate response to this mess if you want to reverse the promise; anything less and I will treat you as a promise breaker...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:That's a problem.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So quit snivelling about what's in the past and work with what has been promised - or alternatively never, ever, make a promise to anyone again, because we know that your word is valueless because you are happy to call for others' promises to be ignored when they are inconvenient.
If the bunch of people in power twenty years earlier made a really, really bad and stupid decision, now acknowledged to be so by the bunch of people in power now, should they be held to the earlier butt-clenching wrong legislation for time immemorial, or should they grit their teeth and overturn it?
Successive UK councils and parliaments don't seem to have a problem here. Successive synods don't seem to have had a problem, either.
Why's this different?
quote:Except we can and we do and we are. So?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The problem isn't that you have two different beliefs. It's that you have two different churches. You simply cannot have a church in which half of the church doesn't recognise the other half's bishops, the other half's priests, the other half's eucharists. If two people cannot recognise each other's eucharists or cannot recognise each other's bishops then how can they be part of the same church?
quote:But there isn't a "rightwing retrenchment". The vast majority of the Church of England, including the majority of evangelicals, are happy to live with ordained women. All that's going on is some of the majority trying hard not to piss off the minority.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking as a Lutheran, I wonder what this rightwing retrenchment means for Anglican-Lutheran relations on the Continent and elsewhere, since most of the Euro-Lutherans I can think of ordain women.
quote:To follow through on this logic a little bit: given that we are going to pay them and give them somewhere to live, we might as well get some work out of them. So let's give them access to some church buildings, and give them bishops so that they are able to operate with authority. And these bishops will be proper Anglicans - just not part of the province of Canterbury... and so we end up with a 'third province' - which is what many FIF people want. IMHO it's the optimum solution to this mess.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
If you now change the rules, you are morally obliged to fully compensate them for your breach of promise. The level of payment should be the equivalent of a full stipend and vicarage till retirement and a full pension afterwards - not the half hearted compensation package offered first time round.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:They can do that now, and will be able to do that in the future. All you're saying here is that women can't be proper Anglican bishops, and that's wrong.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
To follow through on this logic a little bit: given that we are going to pay them and give them somewhere to live, we might as well get some work out of them. So let's give them access to some church buildings, and give them bishops so that they are able to operate with authority. And these bishops will be proper Anglicans
quote:But even if it was, it is also wrong to go back on a commitment made twenty years ago. You have to argue that the compromise was not just mistaken, ill-advised or cowardly, but that it was so completely immoral that it would be better to break the pledges that were made than it would be to keep them. I do think that there can be such promises, but this isn't one of them.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Explicitly put, it was wrong to compromise twenty years ago and it's still wrong now.
quote:In the sense of Church in which the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and the Southern Baptists and the Quakers and the Anglican Communion (all of it) are all part of the same church I would absolutely agree with you.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Except we can and we do and we are. So?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The problem isn't that you have two different beliefs. It's that you have two different churches. You simply cannot have a church in which half of the church doesn't recognise the other half's bishops, the other half's priests, the other half's eucharists. If two people cannot recognise each other's eucharists or cannot recognise each other's bishops then how can they be part of the same church?
quote:Well, yes. But here we get more tricky. Suppose the CofE parish celebrate Mass with a modern bit of business replacing the creed and singing hymns from the Wild Goose worship book at 11.00am; and suppose that The Kingdom of God in Power Ministries (Apostolic) celebrate at 3.00pm in the same building; it's not obvious that they're two parts of the same local assembly of the faithful.
And the other sense of "church", the local assembly of the faithful, where God's Word is preached and the Sacraments celebrated, each of them is for better or worse a flawed image of the eternal Church made concrete in one place and time.
quote:Things have moved on since you were ordained. A friend of mine showed me the paperwork before her BAP towards the end of last year. Among the suff she had to sign was a statement on the lines of, 'You will be expected to live you life in accord with the standard outlined in Issues in Human Sexuality....'
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:As far as I'm aware, ordinands aren't asked to "sign up" to anything. I certainly wasn't, and I was ordained the year after Issues (only ever intended as an interim document) was published.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:How is it inaccurate,. The C of E House of Bishops Issues in Human Sexuality is the standard - all ordinands are asked to sign up to it before they even go to a BAP.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:I think you might want to rephrase that as it couldn't be more inaccurate if you tried.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Homosexuals are already barred from ordination in the C of E and it is a communion-breaking issue.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:Just out of interest, if I were to change the word "women" to "homosexuals" in this sentence, would you still agree with it?
Originally posted by leo:
It is only fair to offer alternative jurisdiction to those who do not accept women as bishops. Not to so is exclusive and intolerant.
Large parts of the Communion do not accept homosexual bishops or priests, or lay people even.
The fact that people lie about their sexuality is a different matter.
The official CofE line is that practising homosexuals may not be ordained. In reality, we might say that "very few CofE bishops will publicly admit to having ordained practising homosexuals" (though, thank God, a brave few do).
quote:What dodgy history book have you been reading?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Admitting women to the episcopate - where they should have always been and where they were at the very start of Christianity
quote:The Bible?
Originally posted by leo:
quote:What dodgy history book have you been reading?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Admitting women to the episcopate - where they should have always been and where they were at the very start of Christianity
quote:I have said earlier on this thread that we had in all fairness and honour to make provision for those who disagreed with women priests who were then in the Church of England, and need to continue to do so for as long as those people are practising priests.
Originally posted by Eliab:
<snip>
The Church of England took the step of ordaining women explicitly on the basis that this was an issue on which Christians could disagree and that there would still be a full place in the Church for people on both sides. It didn't please everybody, it clearly stored up difficulties for the future, but it was a bargain struck in good faith with the intent of perserving the unity and fellowship of the Church while allowing both sides to follow their consciences. It may have been a mistake to make the commitment, but it wasn't a sin.
<snip>
quote:Absolutely we should - the commitment made at the time of the 1992 vote was that there would be a continuing place for those opposed to OOW, and that includes ordaining those amongst them who feel a call the priesthood. The deal was not 'you are now a group who will become extinct but we'll let you hang around under special provisions' but 'you are a group who has every right to continue within the CofE.' On that basis men who are opposed to OOW went forward and were accepted for ordination. Now they are being threatened with marginalisation / being forced out despite the promises made in 1992 to get the legislation through then. Let's be clear - this is a test of whether we can trust the church to do what it says it will do, or are we to treat all clerics as politicians happy to junk promises when they no longer need the votes to do what they want to do.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But ,.. should we equally be making provision for those people who have chosen to be ordained into the Church of England with the view that women should not be ordained, when they knew they were choosing to join a church that had voted that women were now a fully practising part of the church?
quote:Do you have a reference for this? I can't see anything along these lines in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
the commitment made at the time of the 1992 vote was that there would be a continuing place for those opposed to OOW, and that includes ordaining those amongst them who feel a call the priesthood.
quote:So the question for Synod is not about the theological or ecclesiological rights and wrongs of women bishops. It is simply what kind of institution the Church of England wants to be. One that as an organisation decides women are less bishopable than men, or that in this respect reflects the norms of the society in which it operates.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
it is a difference that, once there are women bishops, divides those who differ over it into different institutions. Not because it's impossible to be in charity with each other; but because it's impossible to be part of the same institution.
quote:Nor can I but some notes I have make it obvious that a promise would be broken if alternative episcopal provision is not secured.
Originally posted by Thurible:
I think it was in 'Bonds of Peace', the House of Bishops' document that accompanied the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod, 1993, but I can't find a copy online and don't seem to be able to find it on the bookshelves to check.
Thurible
quote:My reading is that while this ostensibly supports Ender's Shadow's claim, it in fact requires that all involved including those putting themselves forward for ordination not discriminate against anyone who believes women can be priests (eg. a woman seeking ordination). Or that they may be considered for higher office (eg. bishop). Which I would have thought in practice meant that anyone ordained after the Act, whatever their private thoughts, has at least implicitly agreed not to discriminate in public against women priests or their appointment to higher office.
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.
quote:I suspect you are totally ignoring the content of 'the Measure and this Act' in your analysis, which is where the ways in which ordination candidates and anyone else CAN discriminate.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm guessing the relevant paragraph is this one from the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993:
quote:My reading is that while this ostensibly supports Ender's Shadow's claim, it in fact requires that all involved including those putting themselves forward for ordination not discriminate against anyone who believes women can be priests (eg. a woman seeking ordination). Or that they may be considered for higher office (eg. bishop). Which I would have thought in practice meant that anyone ordained after the Act, whatever their private thoughts, has at least implicitly agreed not to discriminate in public against women priests or their appointment to higher office.
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.
Only those ordained prior to the Act would seem to have reasonable grounds for complaint and therefore special provision.
quote:Not as far as I'm aware.
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I suspect you are totally ignoring the content of 'the Measure and this Act' in your analysis
quote:I've linked to the Act. Here's the Measure. Explain how my analysis is wrong (it may well be, but I can't see it).
which is where the ways in which ordination candidates and anyone else CAN discriminate.
quote:The bottom line is what got written into the Measure and the Act. For better or worse, that's the definitive expression of what was agreed.
in the course of the debate before the vote to enable OOW, very generous promises were made by the proponents of the move to ensure that they got the votes they needed to get the legislation through.
quote:Come on. Are you seriously suggesting, with your unsupported claims and hearsay justifications, that you're not engaging in precisely the same kind of politics?
Whilst such behaviour may be routine in politics, it's occurrence in the church is deeply objectionable.
quote:I have twice drawn up little flow charts to follow Dave Marshall's logic, but it still escapes me. I don't think that the section says what he believes it to say. It appears to me that discrimination is forbidden against others on the grounds of their opinions on the priesting of women rather than to the women themselves, which leaves a bit of a loophole. The distinction is subtle, but it is there in the text.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I'm guessing the relevant paragraph is this one from the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993:
quote:My reading is that while this ostensibly supports Ender's Shadow's claim, it in fact requires that all involved including those putting themselves forward for ordination not discriminate against anyone who believes women can be priests (eg. a woman seeking ordination). Or that they may be considered for higher office (eg. bishop). Which I would have thought in practice meant that anyone ordained after the Act, whatever their private thoughts, has at least implicitly agreed not to discriminate in public against women priests or their appointment to higher office.
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.
Only those ordained prior to the Act would seem to have reasonable grounds for complaint and therefore special provision.
quote:[technical tangent]
Originally posted by Fifi:
I don't know why the link I provided above doesn't work,
quote:Thanks for that link. I note that Mr. Alison used the phrase 'commitment to fairness and to allowing a hundred flowers to bloom'.
Originally posted by Fifi:
I don't know why the link I provided above doesn't work, but if you paste
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993-10-29/Debate-1.html
into your browser, it ought to take you there . . .
quote:But (i) confirmation isn't a prerequisite for communion; and (ii) why would anyone need to know how anyone else was confirmed?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, confirmation. Can somebody who has been confirmed by a woman bishop receive communion in a congregation that doesn't recognise women bishops?
quote:Maybe so. But a priest who has been ordained by a woman bishop (in the US) has to be re-ordained before he can function as a priest in the Church of England, because the C of E does not recognize Holy Orders if they were conferred by a woman. I would think the whole point of co-ordinate jurisdiction is that a segment of the C of E does not recognize any priestly or episcopal act whatever if it has been performed by a woman, or if a woman has been involved anywhere along the chain (involved in the ordination of a male priest, for example). The same would apply to confirmations, and I assume infants would have to be conditionally re-baptized if it were suspected that a woman had somehow been involved with the ordination of the priest who performed the baptism, or the priest who later became a bishop who then ordained the priest who performed the baptism, and so on.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:But (i) confirmation isn't a prerequisite for communion; and (ii) why would anyone need to know how anyone else was confirmed?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For example, confirmation. Can somebody who has been confirmed by a woman bishop receive communion in a congregation that doesn't recognise women bishops?
quote:I believe it still is in many traditionalist catholic churches. If it doesn't matter, what is confirmation for exactly? Is it nothing more than a rite to signal to teenagers that they can stop coming to church now?
Originally posted by Eliab:
But (i) confirmation isn't a prerequisite for communion; and (ii) why would anyone need to know how anyone else was confirmed?
quote:I think that those of us with a catholic understanding of the sacraments would see that differently as well.
I don't see the need for conditional confirmation either since confirmation is merely the add on of baptism - though the RCC and orthodox see that differently.
quote:I thought the Catholics routinely had First Communion before confirmation, and that the Church of England had relatively recently (re-)learned the practice from them.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I believe it still is in many traditionalist catholic churches. If it doesn't matter, what is confirmation for exactly?
quote:That's easily fixable. The rules should say that as for as any ministry requiring confirmation is concerned, a confirmation by any Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Orthodox ... whoever else we'd like to be friends with ... minister duly authorised will do. And that anyone who doubts whether they were properly confirmed can be conditionally re-done. That doesn't mean that I have to believe that your confirmation is valid, or you have to believe that mine is. We don't need to think about each other's, or anyone else's, confirmation at all. As far as our priests are concerned, we could both be reasonably confident that they followed the official rules: OK, so some people might doubt that being confirmed by a woman counts, but we already have the situation where Anglicans are allowed to doubt that some Anglican priestly orders are valid, so we can live with that. If we allow conditional confirmation for pastoral reasons, (so that someone confirmed by a woman might be conditionally re-confirmed before being ordained by a man so as not to create a stumbling block for the faith of others) and approach the whole thing with humility and charity, this does not need to be a communion breaking issue. We could make it one, of course, and possibly will, but that doesn't mean that we have to.
If a church thinks it matters at all whether a person was confirmed, then it obviously matters to them whether the person was actually confirmed by someone they think able to confirm people, or only what they consider pretend confirmed.
quote:Not anything a woman does. What I’m suggesting is that if you have some personal scruple about your confirmation, or a good pastoral reason to put its validity beyond (someone else’s) doubt, then you can fix it. If you are happy being confirmed by a properly authorised minister, then as far as eligibility for service in the CofE goes, it’s good for all purposes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In addition, one thing that would be unacceptable to any supporter of women's ordination is conditional redoing of anything the woman does. You can't have the woman ordaining priests and then a male bishop stepping in to conditionally reordain the male priests. You can't have the woman bishop confirming candidates and then a male bishop conditionally confirming them. That just defeats the whole point of ordaining bishops at all if you're then going to have a male bishop redoing everything that the woman bishop does just in case.
quote:Eh? I’m a supporter of women’s ordination and I just suggested it.
Provision of conditional confirmation isn't something that a supporter of women's ordination can agree to.
quote:Why? What is this imperative of which you speak?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
We also have to function in a country in which SSMs are completely legal - not just the mere existence of gays, but full SSMs. Thus the church has to, eventually, come up with a realistic policy that deals with this situation.
quote:The quote would seem to be obvious to a group that wants to connext with its young, but it isn't that obvious in Nigeria or Uganda. "Which side is the church on?" is a valid question.
On the afternoon of June 10, delegates also passed resolution C010. The resolution proposed by youth delegates calls for General Synod to deplore any legislation calling for punishments for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons and their supporters and encourage partners in jurisdictions with such legislation to do the same.
quote:Ok - Provision of conditional confirmation isn't something that a supporter of women's ordination can agree to consistently in my opinion.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Eh? I’m a supporter of women’s ordination and I just suggested it.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Provision of conditional confirmation isn't something that a supporter of women's ordination can agree to.
quote:There was a good article about this in the Observer two issues ago. A young twenty-something ordinand was speaking about his experience and views, particularly when so many new ministers these days are in their forties and fifties starting on second careers.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Particularly when our other neighbours over at UCC have come up with a position opposite to the RC one.
It isn't the existence of the law that forces us to change. It is the existence of a younger generation that cannot see why the existence of GLBTs should be a problem to the church. That existence isn't a problem to them*. What's wrong with the church?
And they aren't going to take "because we used to say so" for an answer, any more than they would see why a Nigerian bishop might have power over them.
*even among evangelical youth in the US, according to Barna
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
