Ship of Fools: Headship bishops

Thread: Headship bishops 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=030764

Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on :

there was much mention in todays debate on the woemn Bishop's measure of Conservative Evengelical 'Headship' anglicans having a Bishop or Bishops to represent their constituency. surely Bishops of whatever gender or personal theology are there to be the prime pastors of all Christians within their anglican Diocese. I would be happy javascript:void(0)with any sort of Bishop who was a) competent b) able to work with and respect people who disagreed with her or him. it's probably too much to put c) constantly in touch with the Parishes and clergy, even for those who would like to be!

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Discussion of the role of women in church belongs in our Dead Horses forum. Note that as one of my colleagues said, this doesn't mean the discussion is dead anymore than it means the discussion is a horse. It just means we think certain discussions have the potential to take over.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I am a maverick.

My Church has had the equivalent of women Bishops for years and I am quite happy with that.

But I seriously doubt the motivation behind the C of E move.

To me all that matters is ordination into the ministry of the Church. There is no greater privilege than to serve as a minister/priest.

There is no "career structure" in my Church to which one might aspire. Some are 'elevated' to higher positions but that is by the way.

An Anglican woman priest said on radio today that now women can happily join the ministry since there are no obstacles left. God help us. To join the ministry in the hope/expectation of becoming a Bishop is to make a travesty of our 'calling'.

Ministry is not a career. It is not just another 'job'.

Anglicans don't seem to get this. For them it is all about 'career structure' and possible 'preferment'. Or so it is for some.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

How is this 'headship bishop' thing supposed to work? Even leaving aside the question of whether the CofE would feel the need to make a similar concession were there a similarly small but noisy and rich minority who beleieved, as some Christians have done, in the Biblically-ordained inferiority of black people [Mad]

, is this going to be yet anoither flying Bishop, or will it be a sop to appease that constituency- a suffragan in, say, Chichester or Southwell (to name two at random) who will not actually be able to offer any pastoral oversight for the great majority of those who share his eccentric views?
And then there's the obvious, final question: when is the great majority of the CofE going to have the balls to tell these headship neanderthals to shut up and fit in or fuck off- and if they do the latter and take their money with them, so be it?

[ 14. July 2014, 17:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

What happens when there is a female ABC ?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

It is a nonsense to equate the justice of women bishops with the demand for more bishops "of our ilk".

Once you start demanding "quotas" for CE bishops or whatever else, you reach the point of madness. The question should be "is this person able to be a bishop for the whole of the diocese, rather than simply for his/her own constituency? The reason that there aren't many CE bishops in the C of E is not because they have been deliberately excluded (as women have been until today), but that very few people have shown any ability to understand how to work across different church traditions.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that those people who HAVE become CE bishops have frequently proved exactly why CE's don't usually make good bishops. The likes of Wallace Benn have not been good bishops. Of course, the whole absurdity in all of this is that the vast majority of CEs don't even pay attention to bishops anyway. So it's not that they are being excluded from something that they are really interested in. It is all about status and power - "we ought to have our own bishop.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

The demand for con-evo bishops is, of course, an ecclesiological dog's breakfast, driven by realpolitik. Conservative evangelicals don't even believe in the episcopacy. It's all about power.

Instead of indulging the demand, a far better response by the Church of England would've been to call their bluff about discrimination in the appointment process, and introduce elections for bishops.

If it had done that, of course, there'd have been no more jobs for the boys (and now, the right sort of girls). Faced with the end of their clubhouse, a con-evo bishop was a small price to pay.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What happens when there is a female ABC ?

I think the C of E will have broken up before then. The few liberal protestants who remain in the (tiny) established church will all be delighted.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

There's been a female Presiding Bishop in the US for a number of years, and, while there has been some of the usual misogynistic ranting in the fringes, I don't think there has been any increase in the "splittist" groups.

Similarly, we've had women as bishops in Canada for quite a while, and there hasn't been an increase in the decline-rate of the church (although there hasn't been a decrease either, FWIW)

All you've done with your little snark is to confirm your personal position in the "snark" area, way over there.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What happens when there is a female ABC ?
I think the C of E will have broken up before then. The few liberal protestants who remain in the (tiny) established church will all be delighted.

Hmm. What makes me think that the predicted breakup of the CofE, were it to occur, which it won't, will make certain other people delighted?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Indeed. Wishful thinking, often from people who've swum the Tiber/ Bosphorus/ Volga.

[ 14. July 2014, 21:29: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmm. What makes me think that the predicted breakup of the CofE, were it to occur, which it won't, will make certain other people delighted?

I'm not delighted Karl, not at all - the C of E was the Church of my baptism. I probably didn't make it clear that I don't believe the C of E will break up soley because of women Bishops. There are many issues creating disunity within Anglicanism and ecumenically.

I could be wrong about the C of E breaking up. If a huge number of people leave and either join other denominations or quit church altogether, is that a break up? The so-called Anglican Communion has already broken up, to all intents and purposes. I don't have a crystal ball and I can't read the future, but things are not looking very rosey in the C of E garden these days.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Ministry is not a career. It is not just another 'job'.

Anglicans don't seem to get this. For them it is all about 'career structure' and possible 'preferment'. Or so it is for some.

Wholeheartedly agreed, except for the idea that "Anglicans" in general don't get this. Some do, some don't. But honestly we've had that problem in the Church (not just Anglican) for a very very long time now. Hundreds of years ago there were terrible attitudes among many clergy which treated it all as a career path for second sons of nobility and so on, lots of worldly power, etc., but we still endured, and I am sure God called people despite the corruption. So, too, with this. So I think it is a good move--if women can be priests then I think there's no obstacle to them becoming bishops (which we have in our own corner of the Anglican Communion here in the US).

Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on :

some of the best - and some of the most powefully eccentric -clergy (with appropriate historical perspective) were people ordained for all the wrong reasons who then discovered the divine compassion.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

I got the impression that the plan is that the headship bishop will be a flying bishop. There seems to be a belief that even in places like Chichester it's hard for a headship evangelical to be an ordinary suffragan without annoying non-evangelicals too much.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I got the impression that the plan is that the headship bishop will be a flying bishop. There seems to be a belief that even in places like Chichester it's hard for a headship evangelical to be an ordinary suffragan without annoying non-evangelicals too much.

This is getting rediculous - Anglo-catholic flying bishops and evangelical flying bishops - both of whom could one day be under the authority of a female archbishop! Or have I missed something?

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Con Evos don't need a bishop provided for them in the same way as ACs - if a local church wants an overseer of some kind, they would have no problem locating/appointing one.

What they require is to avoid having to submit to a female leader - and so a creative way of rethinking how the oaths of obedience are taken would surely answer the need. If we can't be bothered with that, the Metropolitan could simply appoint a retired chap to be known as "Biblical Bishop at Lambeth" or something. He could be the figurehead they all swear at, so to speak.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
I got the impression that the plan is that the headship bishop will be a flying bishop. There seems to be a belief that even in places like Chichester it's hard for a headship evangelical to be an ordinary suffragan without annoying non-evangelicals too much.
This is getting rediculous - Anglo-catholic flying bishops and evangelical flying bishops - both of whom could one day be under the authority of a female archbishop! Or have I missed something?

It's not quite as ridiculous as you think, but almost.

The claimed reason why the bishops think there should be a headship evangelical bishop is so that the college of bishops has among its number someone who can represent and express the conservative evangelical opinion, not so that people can have a bishop of the right flavour.

I'm sure that ConEvo parishes won't see it that way when they get an Anglo-Catholic flying bishop, and they'll keep the ombudsman nice and busy working out whether they can actually express a particular objection to women bishops that means they're guaranteed the ConEvo flying bishop.

And proponents of women bishops will be under the impression that the flying bishops are flying under the authority of the diocesan bishop of the parish they happen to be flying in at the time, so they could be under the authority of a woman bishop, even before there's a woman archbishop. Opponents of women bishops will try very hard to argue that this isn't the case.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

There won't be AC opponents for very long because there's nothing in the guidelines requiring the preservation of a distinctive male episcopal "pool" which perpetuates itself (as in a Third Province). There will be male priests & bishops for the trad parishes, yes - ordained by the female diocesan...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
There won't be AC opponents for very long because there's nothing in the guidelines requiring the preservation of a distinctive male episcopal "pool" which perpetuates itself (as in a Third Province). There will be male priests & bishops for the trad parishes, yes - ordained by the female diocesan...

Exactly - in other words they've had it!

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I'm afraid so

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

..only one place left for them now (or two if you include Eastern Orthodoxy):

Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

As for evangelicals, it's anyone's guess where they will go, if anywhere.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
There won't be AC opponents for very long because there's nothing in the guidelines requiring the preservation of a distinctive male episcopal "pool" which perpetuates itself (as in a Third Province). There will be male priests & bishops for the trad parishes, yes - ordained by the female diocesan...

This relates to one of these details of the FiF position that I've never completely understood.

Imagine a man is consecrated by a bunch of bishops. Some are considered 'proper bishops' by FiF. Some aren't (either because they are women or because they are improperly ordained). There are at least 3 'proper bishops' present. Is that man a 'proper bishop'.

If he is a proper bishop, there's little chance of them running out of 'proper bishops'. If not, I want to understand why; I understood that the reason why there are multiple bishops present is in case one of them is improperly ordained, so why is it not appropriate to just ignore the 'non-proper bishops' and see if what's left is a proper ordination.

[ 15. July 2014, 14:53: Message edited by: *Leon* ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by *Leon*:

quote:
And proponents of women bishops will be under the impression that the flying bishops are flying under the authority of the diocesan bishop of the parish they happen to be flying in at the time, so they could be under the authority of a woman bishop, even before there's a woman archbishop. Opponents of women bishops will try very hard to argue that this isn't the case.

I have to say that if the objection is to women being in authority over men, then the pass has well and truly been sold. When I was a Curate I was, at one point, under the authority of female churchwardens; a male incumbent can fall under the authority of a female archdeacon and, since 1558, the C of E has, intermittently, been under the authority of a female Supreme Governor. If you can accept that little lot, I'm not sure what the objection to the canonical authority of a female Diocesan or Suffragan Bishop is. And it is fairly difficult, from a really snake belly low conservative evangelical POV to set forth a principled objection to a woman Bishop performing the sacramental functions of a Bishop.

Which might make the whole thing look a bit suspect to an unsympathetic observer.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

All this nonsense will fizzle out once they discover that the sky doesn't fall in when they have women bishops, archbishops and ABCs.

One day they will look back and laugh at themselves.

[ 15. July 2014, 15:13: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

We'll laugh & laugh.

Leon - a good point, though the number of bishops is to ensure the consecration is regular & not illicit. One bishop can validly ordain another, though there's rarely the need.

It's a question for liturgical theology as to whether it is only the bishop presiding who is ordaining & the others laying on hands to welcome into the order, as is the case with presbyters, but that's not so important.

The main matter concerns intention. If an ordaining bishop is deliberately introducing elements into the rite which are at odds with what the Church does, then is he intending to ordain a bishop of the universal Church or simply commissioning a minister of this particular denomination?

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:

The main matter concerns intention. If an ordaining bishop is deliberately introducing elements into the rite which are at odds with what the Church does, then is he intending to ordain a bishop of the universal Church or simply commissioning a minister of this particular denomination?

Well, the situation for some time has been that evangelicals think they're simply commissioning a minister of a particular denomination and anglo catholics think they're ordaining a bishop of the universal church, therefore nothing will change.

(And, as an aside, supporters of women bishops would not consider that they are introducing an element into the rite, but at most removing an element from the selection process. Therefore it's hard to argue their intention would be affected by having made a deliberate introduction.)

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

To clarify - if the ordaining bishop at a consecration permits a person not considered to be a bishop by the wider Church to act in a way that only a bishop can (laying on hands, eg), then it might call the intention of the rite itself into question.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
To clarify - if the ordaining bishop at a consecration permits a person not considered to be a bishop by the wider Church to act in a way that only a bishop can (laying on hands, eg), then it might call the intention of the rite itself into question.

By 'the wider church' you presumably include the Roman Catholic church. Since the ordaining bishop at any Anglican ordination presumably knows that the RC church considers his orders to be utterly null and void, then I don't see what would change with women bishops.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Whatever the rights and wrongs of yesterday's vote,the problem that won't go away is the very small number of suitable candidates of either (any?) sex for bishoprics.

By voting to allow women bishops they've increased the available pool by c18% - Big deal.

In the meantime, we still carry on with the charade of all the suffragans who, frankly, are surplus to requirements and an unaffordable luxury.

As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.

If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.

If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.

Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.

Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.

I think I understand where L'organist is coming from.

Why should the majority bend over backwards for people who give every appearance of not giving a damn? In theory, I'm all for compromise and working together and keeping the C of E as a broad church. I've been committed to that throughout the past 20 years. But there comes a time when, to be perfectly honest, you start to wonder why the hell you bothered. If people are so determined to keep themselves to themselves, then let them go.

For a long time, I refused to see Conservative Evangelicals as the C of E equivalent of the Militant Tendency - extremist infiltrators undermining the organisation from the inside. But now I am not so sure. I see the damage done to deaneries, dioceses and the C of E as a whole by a small group of intransigent hardliners. Was it really worth it?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chas of the Dicker:
some of the best - and some of the most powefully eccentric -clergy (with appropriate historical perspective) were people ordained for all the wrong reasons who then discovered the divine compassion.

Indeed and amen. [Smile]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

As usual, l'organist is spot on.
I'm sure this is a very unoriginal question, but does anyone know by what mental contortions this 'headship Bishop' will be able to reconcile his beliefs about women with taking the required Oath(s) to the Queen?

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.

If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.

Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.

Hardly a tiny minority if they've just cleared the 2/3 of each of the houses of synod. If the rest of us are tiny what does that make the less than a third (despite being over-represented in the House of Laity) that cordially hate each others guts when not engaged in alliances of conveniences against the liberals.

I really shouldn't rise to this sort of rubbish but can I point out that the negotiating strategy of the "Girls Have Cooties" brigade in the C of E, both hot-prot and pseudo-Papist, has been to roundly denounce the rest of us as Apostate whilst noisily demanding the moon on a stick. Hows that working out for y'all?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...As for making sure there is on the bench of bishops someone acceptable to the con-evo lunatic fringe (we all know they think women should be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant) this must be resisted at all costs. In any case, since so many con-evos view the traditional hierarchy of the CofE as being optional when it comes to matters of doctrinal or liturgical discipline, why waste time and effort seeking to keep them in - we should be driving them out.

If they want their own little church where women "know their place" and there is complementarity, there is already a worldwide organisation they can join - its called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
That's very sad - evangelicals can leave, they don't matter. Anglo-catholics can leave as well and join the Ordinariate - you don't care much about them either.

Who's left? Just a tiny bunch of liberal-protestants who pride themselves in being sure they always know best.

There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.

Why are the more strident Evangelicals even in the CoE when they believe in very little that is distinctly Anglican? It seems to be for power and control, and having more resources than if they were Baptists or Independent.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.

I would even go so far as to say that they are a majority of Anglo-Catholics. I think most people would consider Rowan Williams to be Anglo-Catholic, for example.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.

I'm certainly one of them, as mentioned on another DH thread today.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

...Hardly a tiny minority if they've just cleared the 2/3 of each of the houses of synod. If the rest of us are tiny what does that make the less than a third (despite being over-represented in the House of Laity) that cordially hate each others guts when not engaged in alliances of conveniences against the liberals.

I really shouldn't rise to this sort of rubbish but can I point out that the negotiating strategy of the "Girls Have Cooties" brigade in the C of E, both hot-prot and pseudo-Papist, has been to roundly denounce the rest of us as Apostate whilst noisily demanding the moon on a stick. Hows that working out for y'all?

It just seems strange. Let's face it - your pews are empty on Sunday mornings. Most people have found other things to do, work or go shopping at Tesco - and you want to get rid of people?

Well, good luck with that - it's your funeral.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
I'm certainly one of them, as mentioned on another DH thread today.

I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic. In my most recent blog I make the point that it is just not possible to argue convincingly that at any point in the history of the Church would an Ecumenical Council have voted in favour of women's ordination. Which means that it was not a doctrine present implicitly or explicitly in the Apostolic deposit of faith nor a feature of the pre-schism undivided Church. It is, therefore an innovation which by definition makes it incompatible with Catholicism defined in any historic way.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic. In my most recent blog I make the point that it is just not possible to argue convincingly that at any point in the history of the Church would an Ecumenical Council have voted in favour of women's ordination. Which means that it was not a doctrine present implicitly or explicitly in the Apostolic deposit of faith nor a feature of the pre-schism undivided Church. It is, therefore an innovation which by definition makes it incompatible with Catholicism defined in any historic way.

Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout. That's why John Henry Newman eventually gave up on it and converted to Roman Catholicism.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.

Why are the more strident Evangelicals even in the CoE when they believe in very little that is distinctly Anglican? It seems to be for power and control, and having more resources than if they were Baptists or Independent.

Well it's worth pointing out that there are Evangelicals who are welcoming of women being ordained as well. The so-called strident Evangelicals are a tiny minority from what I can see. Holy Trinity Brompton and its network of churches supports OOW and women bishops, and they are certainly the most influential evangelical bloc within the CofE - including former parishioner Archbishop Welby.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic. In my most recent blog I make the point that it is just not possible to argue convincingly that at any point in the history of the Church would an Ecumenical Council have voted in favour of women's ordination. Which means that it was not a doctrine present implicitly or explicitly in the Apostolic deposit of faith nor a feature of the pre-schism undivided Church. It is, therefore an innovation which by definition makes it incompatible with Catholicism defined in any historic way.
Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout. That's why John Henry Newman eventually gave up on it and converted to Roman Catholicism.

You mean he passed his tray past the "CofE" hatches and decided what he liked was the RC offering so picked that?

Picking and Choosing - everyone does this.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.

Complete rubbish, but I thought the topic was about Evangelical headship bishops?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.
Complete rubbish, but I thought the topic was about Evangelical headship bishops?

Well, exactly, but somebody started going on about cafeterias, so I thought I'd chip in.

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :

I'm intrigued by the idea that the main objections to all this are coming from the anglo-catholics, but that's because in my experience the ACs and other Anglican high church types are actually the most liberal branch of the CoE at the moment. That's certainly true in London. But then in practice I don't think I know a single Christian of any sort in real life any more who is against the ordination of women - you just don't come across it like you used to. There's one single solitary FiF church near here and all the other local churches just sort of pretend they don't exist and get on with things around them. "No, we don't talk to those guys. All a bit of an embarrassment really."

This is a totally stupid question, probably, but - is it now technically possible for a woman to become an Archbishop, or would something further have to change before that could happen?

[ 16. July 2014, 13:13: Message edited by: Persephone Hazard ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

An Archbishop is just a terribly grand Bishop. If you can have a lady Bishop you can have a lady Archbishop. In practice, you usually have to have been at least a Diocesan Bishop before being appointed as Archbishop so it will take time for female bishops to percolate through the system.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, delicious irony there. Newman didn't like what was on offer, so found something else on offer.
Complete rubbish, but I thought the topic was about Evangelical headship bishops?
Well, exactly, but somebody started going on about cafeterias, so I thought I'd chip in.

Was that a pun? Well OK, I'll just have beans on toast and a cuppa (no sugar I use my own sweetners) - ta.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
An Archbishop is just a terribly grand Bishop. If you can have a lady Bishop you can have a lady Archbishop. In practice, you usually have to have been at least a Diocesan Bishop before being appointed as Archbishop so it will take time for female bishops to percolate through the system.

I'm not so sure these days - look at the speed Justin Welby and Katharine Jefferts Schori were fast-tracked into their current positions.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
An Archbishop is just a terribly grand Bishop. If you can have a lady Bishop you can have a lady Archbishop. In practice, you usually have to have been at least a Diocesan Bishop before being appointed as Archbishop so it will take time for female bishops to percolate through the system.
I'm not so sure these days - look at the speed Justin Welby and Katharine Jefferts Schori were fast-tracked into their current positions.

KJS was Bishop of Nevada before becoming Presiding Bishop. Welby was Bishop of Durham before becoming ABC, albeit only for a year and a half.

The more recent (non-Anglican) exception was Cardinal Hume who went from being Abbot of Ampleforth to Archbishop of Westminster. Even his pace up the greasy pole was comparatively sedate compared to St. Ambrose who, IIRC, was Christened, Deaconed, Priested and Bishoped on his election to the See of Milan. I can't see that happening nowadays, though!

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout. That's why John Henry Newman eventually gave up on it and converted to Roman Catholicism.

You're confusing "bits they like" with, "everything except the bits they cannot accept in good conscience".

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout. That's why John Henry Newman eventually gave up on it and converted to Roman Catholicism.
You're confusing "bits they like" with, "everything except the bits they cannot accept in good conscience".

IIRC from his Apologia, was Newman's move not predicated on a study of theological controversies of the patristic period? IIRC the logic he derived from that, and his belief that the CoE was an uncontrovertably Protestant and erastian entity was what moved him to Rome. What Mark describes as his motives applies more frequently to 20c converts.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.

Why are the more strident Evangelicals even in the CoE when they believe in very little that is distinctly Anglican? It seems to be for power and control, and having more resources than if they were Baptists or Independent.
Well it's worth pointing out that there are Evangelicals who are welcoming of women being ordained as well. The so-called strident Evangelicals are a tiny minority from what I can see. Holy Trinity Brompton and its network of churches supports OOW and women bishops, and they are certainly the most influential evangelical bloc within the CofE - including former parishioner Archbishop Welby.

Oh totally - the conservative evangelicals are just the loudest, though unfortunately often the richest too.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
I'm intrigued by the idea that the main objections to all this are coming from the anglo-catholics, but that's because in my experience the ACs and other Anglican high church types are actually the most liberal branch of the CoE at the moment. That's certainly true in London. But then in practice I don't think I know a single Christian of any sort in real life any more who is against the ordination of women - you just don't come across it like you used to. There's one single solitary FiF church near here and all the other local churches just sort of pretend they don't exist and get on with things around them. "No, we don't talk to those guys. All a bit of an embarrassment really."

This is a totally stupid question, probably, but - is it now technically possible for a woman to become an Archbishop, or would something further have to change before that could happen?

I don't think the main objections are coming from the FiF end, I think they're coming from the conservative evangelical end. After all, FiF object to women's ordination but not for headship reasons, and don't generally insist on male headship elsewhere, as RCs wouldn't. Conservative evangelicals believe that women should only teach other women and children, which is not what FiF/RCs believe.

As to how mainstream the opponents are, I think it varies by location. In Northampton, most Anglican churches are FiF, and one of the two evangelical churches are con-evo. In East Sussex (not Brighton&Hove), conservative evangelicals are in the majority. Obviously in London, the picture is a lot more mixed than elsewhere.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
An Archbishop is just a terribly grand Bishop. If you can have a lady Bishop you can have a lady Archbishop. In practice, you usually have to have been at least a Diocesan Bishop before being appointed as Archbishop so it will take time for female bishops to percolate through the system.
I'm not so sure these days - look at the speed Justin Welby and Katharine Jefferts Schori were fast-tracked into their current positions.
KJS was Bishop of Nevada before becoming Presiding Bishop. Welby was Bishop of Durham before becoming ABC, albeit only for a year and a half.

The more recent (non-Anglican) exception was Cardinal Hume who went from being Abbot of Ampleforth to Archbishop of Westminster. Even his pace up the greasy pole was comparatively sedate compared to St. Ambrose who, IIRC, was Christened, Deaconed, Priested and Bishoped on his election to the See of Milan. I can't see that happening nowadays, though!

No, but if you look at the last three appointments to Canterbury they seem to have been based on the view that the someone with limited experience of bishoping (in the CofE: ++ Rowan had after all been a Bishop for ten years and the rough equivalent of an Archbishop) might be just the fresh breeze that the Church needs. And the CofE is thinking about how to fast-track some women bishops into the House of Lords. I think that the main reason that the next ABC isn't going to be e.g. Vivienne Faull is that ++Justin is only 58, rather than anything else.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
I'm certainly one of them, as mentioned on another DH thread today.

The vast (vst) majority of Con Evos in other denominations (except perhaps new Frontiers) are totally in favour of women bishops. Baptists even have a female Gen Sec - our sort of equiv to the ABC. http://www.baptist.org.uk/Articles/369425/Introducing_Lynn_Green.aspx

Why, some of us have even been ordaining women since the 1920's! Does that put us even further down the slippery slope to hell?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
As for evangelicals, it's anyone's guess where they will go, if anywhere.

Well there's always a warm welcome in the Baptist Union - and we recognise their orders with no extras too

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.
I'm certainly one of them, as mentioned on another DH thread today.
The vast (vst) majority of Con Evos in other denominations (except perhaps new Frontiers) are totally in favour of women bishops. Baptists even have a female Gen Sec - our sort of equiv to the ABC. http://www.baptist.org.uk/Articles/369425/Introducing_Lynn_Green.aspx

Why, some of us have even been ordaining women since the 1920's! Does that put us even further down the slippery slope to hell?

Many in NFI churches, including myself, are in favour of female leadership too, despite the official position of our leadership. We have women preach in my church.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic.

Sacramentally, liturgically, with Apostolic Succession (which I know the Roman Catholics do not accept that we have) and such.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout.

There's no need to be snarky or accusatory over doctrinal differences.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why, some of us have even been ordaining women since the 1920's! Does that put us even further down the slippery slope to hell?

Wow, Baptists in the UK are different from the ones in the US, too! At least in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Plus the whole thing about submissive wives.

[ 16. July 2014, 23:12: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why, some of us have even been ordaining women since the 1920's! Does that put us even further down the slippery slope to hell?
Wow, Baptists in the UK are different from the ones in the US, too! At least in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Plus the whole thing about submissive wives.

Very different - and at least we can read what Ephesians 5 really says about submission (ie it's to one another).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
[QUOTE] Many in NFI churches, including myself, are in favour of female leadership too, despite the official position of our leadership. We have women preach in my church.

Thanks HA - I did say "some!" I assume also that you mean it's to a mixed group.

The local NFI leadership wouldn't allow that despite being a relatively late set up: the only exception would be to a women only congregation.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
I struggle to understand in what sense you mean Catholic.
Sacramentally, liturgically, with Apostolic Succession (which I know the Roman Catholics do not accept that we have) and such.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anglo-Catholicism in the C of E has always been a sort of "Cafeteria catholicism" - that is, they pick the bits they like, and move their tray past the things they don't want on the way to the checkout.
There's no need to be snarky or accusatory over doctrinal differences.

But surely the only warrant that you have for believing the Sacraments and the Liturgies have any value at all is because the Catholic Church said that they do. If the Church was rightly guided by the Holy Spirit in those matters what is your basis for judging that she is no longer so guided and/or was never so guided in those matters which you disagree with her about?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
But surely the only warrant that you have for believing the Sacraments and the Liturgies have any value at all is because the Catholic Church said that they do. If the Church was rightly guided by the Holy Spirit in those matters what is your basis for judging that she is no longer so guided and/or was never so guided in those matters which you disagree with her about?

Let's reverse the question. Why, just because the Catholic Church is right about one thing, must it be right about everything, including things that look very much like they come from the spirit of a previous age and seem to be based neither on the teaching of the apostles nor on scripture? The Holy Spirit guides the church, most certainly, and the way to receive that guidance is generally prayer and contemplation. The RCC long since decided that it would trust that all such guidance has already been received and had been received correctly. I would say that there are issues where the RCC sadly passed off their cultural assumptions as universal truths without seeking that guidance, and that going back to those issues now may lead to a different understanding. The centralising tendency of the Papacy made that more likely.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

The point is that either we accept that the Church founded by the Apostles is guided by the Spirit on all matters essential for salvation and that therefore she teaches with authority or we say the only sure guide we have in these matters is our own private judgement. No halfway house can have either the authority to teach or the authority to negate what has already been taught in a definitive way.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
The point is that either we accept that the Church founded by the Apostles is guided by the Spirit on all matters essential for salvation and that therefore she teaches with authority or we say the only sure guide we have in these matters is our own private judgement. No halfway house can have either the authority to teach or the authority to negate what has already been taught in a definitive way.

I would accept that the church is guided in all matters necessary for salvation. I suspect that the disagreement lies is the extent to which the RCC's definition of what is essential can be relied upon. Besides, we're not talking about private judgement, we're talking about private judgement far more when we talk about the Papacy than when we talk about the General Synod of the Church of England, and still more so when we're talking about the genuinely Ecumenical Councils - which Anglo-Catholics certainly do accept.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

A Provincial Synod does not have the authority to change the doctrines of a universal Church. If no Ecumenical Council has ever or will ever endorse a particular doctrine then we can safely conclude that that doctrine does not form a part of the Apostolic faith. Anglicans are welcome to make up whatever doctrines they like but they can only do so on the basis that they are a Protestant sect and cannot claim in any meaningful sense to be a continuation of that body established by St Augustine of Canterbury. Anglo-Catholics who think that the authority of synod overrides that of of the Apostles are simply Protestants who like incense and frilly vestments

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
The point is that either we accept that the Church founded by the Apostles is guided by the Spirit on all matters essential for salvation and that therefore she teaches with authority or we say the only sure guide we have in these matters is our own private judgement. No halfway house can have either the authority to teach or the authority to negate what has already been taught in a definitive way.
I would accept that the church is guided in all matters necessary for salvation.

Except its various branches can't quite agree on that. I'm told by some extreme calvinists that unless I believe in calvinism I show no evidence of saving faith, for example.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
A Provincial Synod does not have the authority to change the doctrines of a universal Church. If no Ecumenical Council has ever or will ever endorse a particular doctrine then we can safely conclude that that doctrine does not form a part of the Apostolic faith. Anglicans are welcome to make up whatever doctrines they like but they can only do so on the basis that they are a Protestant sect and cannot claim in any meaningful sense to be a continuation of that body established by St Augustine of Canterbury. Anglo-Catholics who think that the authority of synod overrides that of of the Apostles are simply Protestants who like incense and frilly vestments

Given that no ecumenical council has met since the 700s or is ever likely to again, the RCC is likewise constrained from pronouncing new doctrine. It doesn't seem to have obeyed this restriction, indeed it seems to have doubled-down on its prior assertions of authority. It is amazing how tightly you manage to define Catholicism. It's almost as if you start from the presumption that no-one outside the RCC can be Catholic and work backwards and identify points of disagreement as being fundamental to the faith.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Only one con-evo church in my area, to my knowledge, where the vicar doesn't accept women priests. He, allegedly, said he'd leave if women bishops are ever appointed. I shall watch with interest to see what happens, as I don't think the congregation as a whole share the more extreme of his views.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
But surely the only warrant that you have for believing the Sacraments and the Liturgies have any value at all is because the Catholic Church said that they do. If the Church was rightly guided by the Holy Spirit in those matters what is your basis for judging that she is no longer so guided and/or was never so guided in those matters which you disagree with her about?

As an EO, we do believe that the Roman Catholic Church did err in the things leading to the Great Scism - such as Papal Supremacy and the Filioque Clause. I know few will agree with me, but I would say that we are now the true guardians of Catholicity (hence the name Orthodox). That is why we have changed little since the 11th century, whereas the Roman Catholics have changed a great deal, especially since Vatican II.

Anyhow, this departure from the Catholic Faith in the Roman Catholic Church led to other problems which culminated in the Reformation - from which the Anglican Church arose, and many other Protestant denominations. Since those days, it seems the western Church cannot agree on anything and is destined to just keep on fragmenting. That is why I can no longer have confidence that the C of E, Roman Catholic or any western denomination, is always guided by the Holy Spirit.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think one could (should?) argue that the orthodox have more right to regard themselves as the 'true' church than the Roman church, purely on the grounds of having carried on the link between Roman emperor and church.

On the other hand, the claims of the Syriac orthodox seem even better.

As for a 'headship' bishop being a new requirement: I'll reiterate that since the people who argue for complementarity and headship tend not to see the need for bishops, we don't have to worry to much about finding one they'd approve of.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I think one could (should?) argue that the orthodox have more right to regard themselves as the 'true' church than the Roman church, purely on the grounds of having carried on the link between Roman emperor and church.

On the other hand, the claims of the Syriac orthodox seem even better.

As for a 'headship' bishop being a new requirement: I'll reiterate that since the people who argue for complementarity and headship tend not to see the need for bishops, we don't have to worry to much about finding one they'd approve of.

One thing we should note is that while we've been going on about the "true" visible Church and Church history, these things mean nothing to CEs. Their only criteria for a Bishop is that he is "Bible based." That means in reality that he (it will always be a "he") understands the Bible in accordance with Evangelical interpretations. It would need a whole new thread if we are to discuss whether Evangelical interpretations are the "true" interpretations, but I think you already know where I stand on that. Please also note that these new Evangelical interpretations have come about since the first and second (more radical) waves of Reformers.

The "true" Church for them isn't a visible Church at all - it is the body of christians who interpret the Bible as I've explained above (please don't make me say "Bible based" again.)

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

[[/QUOTE]There are Anglo-Catholics who are welcoming of women being ordained, thank you very much.

Too true. I used to work in a certain Oxford theological college which always had a handful of women students [who wished to be priests] as well as a substantial number of sympathetic men,

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

Makes sense. If Anglo-Catholics are willing to be ordained into a church whose orders Rome explicitly rejects, gender shouldn't matter. Male or female, according to the magisterium, all are laity.

Posted by Chas of the Dicker (# 12769) on :

My original concern in starting this thread was not really about women's ordination per se but whether someone holding to clear views about the Headship of the Male could effectively operate as a Bishop in our mixed economy denomination. This would not o0nly be because of a clash of values with women holding authority in the Diocese but also having to acknowledge as valid faith those who hold different views. It must be hard to pastor someone you don't regard as authentically Christian when they themselves are dure that they are. Bishop Martin of Chichester has gone a long way to separate his clear personal view of the impossibility of women's ordination with his episcopal and pastoral intervention in the Diocese to raise the profile of women's ministry, but his views are not the same as the Headship people who want a Bishop for themselves...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0