Thread: Male headship bishop 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=030790
Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :
 
The Archbishop of Canterbury is about to appoint a bishop chosen specifically because he believes in 'male headship' - PDF download .

According to the press release, he will "foster vocations from those taking this position" and he will act as a flying bishop across every diocese in the Church of England.

So, while we still have no women bishops, there's plenty of room in the Church of England for those who believe in what Rod Thomas calls the "functional priority of men".

Will this reverse the steady decline in Church of England attendance and credibility? I doubt it.

[brick wall]

[ 09. December 2014, 18:26: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Hopefully not - instead it might model what we do with disagreement and how we include everyone as far as we can.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Time to let the sexists go their separate way. Enough appeasement!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Neil Kinnock was not the most successful leader of the Labour Party but he would have been markedly less successful if he had decided the best way to deal with Militant was to permanently ensure that one of their members had a front bench position in the parliamentary party.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Spot on.
One is familiar with the old 'better inside pissing out than outside pissing in' argument: but this is about keeping people inside so that they can keep pissing in.

[ 08. December 2014, 14:48: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
I think I have already made my feelings clear on the Purgatory thread.

This is a craven giving-in to ConEvo bullying and it won't end here. Anyone want to suggest what the next demand will be?

I'm guessing - formal acknowledgement of ACNA, followed by a demand that there be a (delayed) Lambeth Conference, on terms that The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada will be unable to comply with without complete capitulation.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Just as some of us in the North of England would have been happy to be part of an independent Scotland, perhaps the Scottish Episcopal Church might appoint a bishop with a ministry to those English Anglicans who find 'male headship' and similar views abhorrent. There must be a suitable woman priest in Scotland prepared to take on the role, but if not I suggest the Very Revd Kelvin Holdsworth.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
What does his see look like in terms of churchpersonship? I have experience of having a male headship bishop (+Benn) but Lewes is a distinctly con evo see.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Just as some of us in the North of England would have been happy to be part of an independent Scotland, perhaps the Scottish Episcopal Church might appoint a bishop with a ministry to those English Anglicans who find 'male headship' and similar views abhorrent. There must be a suitable woman priest in Scotland prepared to take on the role, but if not I suggest the Very Revd Kelvin Holdsworth.
Perhaps the CinW and SEC might collaborate. Meanwhile, those in border parishes might want to consider looking at what we have to offer.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Over on "Thinking Anglicans", Prof Martyn Percy has posted a highly pertinent comment. Here are some extracts.

quote:
...As an initiative, it represents the triumph of weak managerial pragmatism over and against strong theological leadership.

....But with this new initiative from the Archbishops, we'll now have a situation in which inequality is (literally) consecrated into our church. It is a highly regrettable move that shows no theological nous - but that is perhaps the least surprising aspect of this debacle.
(Full comments here)
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
I'll accept a patriarchy bishop just as soon as John Sentamu signs off on a racist bishop.

Until that day, he's inflicting on women contempt he would never (and rightly) be willing to suffer himself.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
What does his see look like in terms of churchpersonship? I have experience of having a male headship bishop (+Benn) but Lewes is a distinctly con evo see.
I'm a bit bemused by the idea of a diocese, let alone an episcopal area, having a distinctive churchpersonship. Of course, some take on the flavour of successive bishops to a large degree, but I don't know of anywhere in England that could be described as 'a con-evo see.' There will always be a large proportion of parishes of a different flavour, surely; even in Lewes?

Anyway, I think the idea of the 'headship' bishop is to be the equivalent for con-evos what the other flying bishops are to the F-in-F anglo-catholics. I doubt if he (and it is definitely a 'sic') will have much to do with Maidstone as such unless there are parishes there that seek his jurisdiction. But I may have got that wrong.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Over on "Thinking Anglicans", Prof Martyn Percy has posted a highly pertinent comment. Here are some extracts.

quote:
...As an initiative, it represents the triumph of weak managerial pragmatism over and against strong theological leadership.

....But with this new initiative from the Archbishops, we'll now have a situation in which inequality is (literally) consecrated into our church. It is a highly regrettable move that shows no theological nous - but that is perhaps the least surprising aspect of this debacle.
(Full comments here)
More than "regrettable," patriarchy (screw "complementarianism" for the tricksy rebrand it is) is a vile doctrine, that teaches half the human race ought to be cast into slavery.

Oh, sure, the "complementarians" restrict their oppression to church circles, but only 'cause they've been beaten back. Given half a chance, I've no doubt they'd sweep away women's access to the franchise and the professions, and reinstate coverture with a song in their heart.

Patriarchy is a clarion call to bullies, the corrupter of decent people, male and female, into accomplices in a system of dominance and suppression. A church that does anything other than denounce it utterly is a church that's bankrupt in spirit and, I hope soon, all other regards.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
What does his see look like in terms of churchpersonship? I have experience of having a male headship bishop (+Benn) but Lewes is a distinctly con evo see.
I'm a bit bemused by the idea of a diocese, let alone an episcopal area, having a distinctive churchpersonship. Of course, some take on the flavour of successive bishops to a large degree, but I don't know of anywhere in England that could be described as 'a con-evo see.' There will always be a large proportion of parishes of a different flavour, surely; even in Lewes?

Anyway, I think the idea of the 'headship' bishop is to be the equivalent for con-evos what the other flying bishops are to the F-in-F anglo-catholics. I doubt if he (and it is definitely a 'sic') will have much to do with Maidstone as such unless there are parishes there that seek his jurisdiction. But I may have got that wrong.
I think we need to be clear that there is no "Diocese of Maidstone".

As I understand it (in other words - not giving a flying fuck enough to bother checking my details), the Bishop of Maidstone will effectively be a ConEvo flying bishop, dealing with ConEvo parishes across the country which don't want to deal with their own diocesan bishops.

(What I am unclear about is whether this simply applies to ConEvo parishes who find themselves with a woman diocesan bishop, or whether ANY ConEvo parish could look to +Maidstone rather than their bishop, simply out of choice. Whilst the former is what would make most sense, I suspect that the latter is what will happen anyway.)

What is immediately clear is that +Maidstone is likely to be doing some heavy travelling. Will he be going from Carlisle to Truro and from Lewes to Norfolk? Who will be paying for this travelling? And how long will it be before the demand comes for a northern ConEvo bishop as well?
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I have experience of having a male headship bishop (+Benn) but Lewes is a distinctly con evo see.
Lewes is a Suffragan See of the Diocese of Chichester and no longer has a geographical area, following the Diocese abolishing its area scheme in 2013.

As to how Maidstone will work, it will be for the relevant Diocesan Bishop to invite +Maidstone to offer Episcopal care to a parish requesting such oversight. That application will be made to the Diocesan in accordance with the House of Bishops Declaration. There is a duty of the Diocesan to consider the "nature" of the theological convictions underlying the request and make suitable provision.

Presumably is the convictions are of a con-evo nature, the Diocesan will ask +Maidstone to assist.

I don't think one should get too hung up on the geographical location. Remember that neither +Richborough (St Albans) or +Ebbsfleet (Reading) live in the Diocese of Canterbury. They live in somewhere from where they can best perform their duties. Presumably +Maidstone will live relatively centrally to facilitate his huge geographic area. Due to transport links, I guess it might be London.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Having looked at the link and its comments, I was interested to see that the person most exercised against criticism of the headship idea being described as a heresy and most in favour of its being the clear teaching of scripture goes by the title of "Father", when scripture is quite clear about who that title should be applied to. No-one human.

I shouldn't really have an opinion about this stuff any more. I left at the time of the women priests debate because I couldn't get my mind round the degree of othering that was applied to women without adequate criticism from the top. Or, at the time, anywhere with any gravitas. And here it is again. Or still. Why can't a man be a man without being so emphatic about not being a woman? Or, come to that, gay? What happened to the Pauline teaching about there being no distinctions on Christ?

[ 09. December 2014, 10:27: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on :
 
Thought for the day:

Given that +Maidstone will have no direct authority over anybody (all power will be delegated by either +Cantaur or the relevant Diocesan Bishop), presumably the conservative evangelicals would have no issue with the first female Bishop being appoint to the See of Maidstone?

[Devil]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I would have thought that the experience of having had one ConEvo 'headship' believing bishop (+Wallace) would be enough for any organisation, even one so determinedly self-flagellating as the CofE.

As for the whole idea of the 'justification' for a ConEvo flying bishop, it stinks.

And before anyone starts trying to justify it by pointing to the AffCath flying bishops, we're not talking about a bishop here who disapproves of or doesn't recognise fellow clergy, we're talking about a bishop who regards as inferior over 50% of the regular worshippers in the CofE.

This is a squalid business, and one that casts the House of Bishops in the most unfavourable light. Where are the objections of people like +Salisbury?

All this is the name of some spurious 'unity' - and clergy wonder why the church is not only seen as irrelevant but held in increasing contempt by most of British society.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
OtG, thanks for the clarification.

Angloid, E Sussex is heavily conservative evangelical generally, and not just in the CoE churches. In the town I lived in, the only non-con evo CoE church is a conservative FiF one. Certainly when I lived there and was battling with my sexuality, the only affirming church was the Quakers - and that was a bit too much of a culture shock for someone who genuinely loved evangelical worship (and to an extent still does). The local Catholic churches certainly felt fairly liberal in comparison to the local Anglican churches. Don't forget that E Sussex is home to a lot of big evangelical business - Kingsway, lots of famous worship leaders like Stuart Townend, CCLI, big evangelical youthwork conferences etc etc. The area is jam-packed with headship types.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
And just across into Kent you had Hildenborough Hall... which the smooth-voiced beared NP ran with his (no ex) wife Margaret for a number of years before his move to ASLP...
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Yes, there's definitely some crossover at the E Sussex/Kent border - and the con-evo domination is mostly from Eastbourne onwards going eastwards. Eastbourne/Hastings/East Grinstead etc. Very Oakhill dominated.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And before anyone starts trying to justify it by pointing to the AffCath flying bishopschurch is not only seen as irrelevant but held in increasing contempt by most of British society.
Do you mean FiF bishops? - AffCath opposes flying bishops.
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[...] And before anyone starts trying to justify it by pointing to the AffCath flying bishops, we're not talking about a bishop here who disapproves of or doesn't recognise fellow clergy, we're talking about a bishop who regards as inferior over 50% of the regular worshippers in the CofE. [...]
Personally, I reckon the "flying bishops" set the precedent for this, as well as being wrong in itself. I'd have offered 'em a choice between compensation (as the terms of their contract had been altered) or working with female priests as colleagues and equals while keeping their beliefs to themselves. I'd also have offered compensation to the women kept waiting for so long. It's scandalous that the only people who got a payout were the very people who voted to exclude women on the grounds of their gender.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Whatever label they give themselves or are given - flying bishops (Ebbsfleet etc).

Now, anyone got a name for the incoming Bishop to the second incarnation of the KKK (or whatever)?
 
Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :
 
Dragon-without-portfolio?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I meant as in the name of the uber manly chap who is to be the pro-Headship bishop.

I hope his mother is alive to send him to bed without any supper for being such a horrid little beast...

[ 09. December 2014, 17:21: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And just across into Kent you had Hildenborough Hall... which the smooth-voiced beared NP ran with his (no ex) wife Margaret for a number of years before his move to ASLP...
Sorry, L'organist, but that's a little too gnomic for me. Who? What? ASLP? [Confused]

(I know Hildenborough Hall. When I was a teen, the youth group went there a few times for weekends. I remember Justyn Rees (or Rust in Peace, as we called him). There was a guy called Max as well, I think. It was a long time ago...)
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And just across into Kent you had Hildenborough Hall... which the smooth-voiced beared NP ran with his (no ex) wife Margaret for a number of years before his move to ASLP...
Sorry, L'organist, but that's a little too gnomic for me. Who? What? ASLP? [Confused]

(I know Hildenborough Hall. When I was a teen, the youth group went there a few times for weekends. I remember Justyn Rees (or Rust in Peace, as we called him). There was a guy called Max as well, I think. It was a long time ago...)
All Souls Langham Place, I am assuming?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Nick Page. Sometime secretary of the International Christian Media Commission? Did a lot of stuff for LBC.

Got involved with All Souls Langham Place (friend of Michael Baughen and Noel Tredinnick), hosted Prom Praise, big promoter of Mr Ken***ck,etc. He's now with Lapido Media, who've been advising some of the big African churches on image over the bad press they've received re 'deliverance ministry'.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Nick Page. Sometime secretary of the International Christian Media Commission? Did a lot of stuff for LBC.

Got involved with All Souls Langham Place (friend of Michael Baughen and Noel Tredinnick), hosted Prom Praise, big promoter of Mr Ken***ck,etc. He's now with Lapido Media, who've been advising some of the big African churches on image over the bad press they've received re 'deliverance ministry'.
Nope. Doesn't ring a bell. Although I find it amusing that Lapido Media's website isn't functioning.

My big worry here is that I went to University with a guy called Nick Page. I hope to goodness it isn't him, as he certainly wasn't the sharpest pencil in the case, if you catch my drift.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
But what about FiF churches? Is it assumed that their views on women will trump all others and they will be happy with a ConEvo bishop?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, you might aks why the conevos can't accept the ministry of one of the existing Flying Bishops. Wrong kind of misogyny, I suppose.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Definitely the wrong sort of misogyny - how can you call yourself a true woman hater and yet wear lace, for God's sake?

The ConEvo isn't just misogynist as some abstract concept, he marries a woman of his own so he can make her feel 'special': this process involves the following
Makes the average lace-wearing, gin-sipping AC look like a saint.

Share flying bishops? No AC bishop, however misogynistic, could ever approach the true woman-hating credentials, or hypocrisy, of a 'headship believer.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
[Overused] , l'o.
And in fact, on reflection, I can see how you could in theory be opposed to OoW on A-C grounds and yet not be (very) misogynistic: for example, if your objection was based on beliefs about the lack of authority of the CofE, as a part of the western Church, to make such a a change, acting on its own. I suspoect that most (male) A-C opponents of OoW are misogynistic, but they might not all be. But 'headship', ISTM, is just structural misogyny.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And just across into Kent you had Hildenborough Hall... which the smooth-voiced beared NP ran with his (no ex) wife Margaret for a number of years before his move to ASLP...
Sorry, L'organist, but that's a little too gnomic for me. Who? What? ASLP? [Confused]

(I know Hildenborough Hall. When I was a teen, the youth group went there a few times for weekends. I remember Justyn Rees (or Rust in Peace, as we called him). There was a guy called Max as well, I think. It was a long time ago...)
You mean Max Sinclair. I worked on the domestic staff at HH for a student summer job 1981. Vaguely remember the name Nick Page, now that someone mentioned it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Not structural Albertus, the word is visceral.

<tangent>
Anyone else think that the incidence of anti-female - whether AC or ConEvo - people has increased since bishops got shorter? I only ask because a friend holds to this and I can't see that they're wrong ... </tangent>
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
re: HH

Nick Page and his wife (Margaret?) ran the place from sometime in the 1960s to at least the early 1980s. Of course, as his broadcasting increased I suspect he spent less time in the Weald.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Not structural Albertus, the word is visceral.

<tangent>
Anyone else think that the incidence of anti-female - whether AC or ConEvo - people has increased since bishops got shorter? I only ask because a friend holds to this and I can't see that they're wrong ... </tangent>
I've always felt that viscera were involved somewhere - or at least the brain stem rather than anything higher than the "reptilian" brain.

Interesting point about height, though. If true, this means that the height of bishops has run counter to the general increase in height in the population as a whole, post war. I'm used to older men including many shorter than me (I'm average female.) Unless they were of officer class. I wonder if taller people do not need to put others down to maintain their sense of status.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Welby is short, Sentamu average height; Warner is VERY short; Holtam is not a giant; Chartres is a decent height.

Hinde (now retired) was not tall, nor Hill (Guildford); Priddis (ex-Hereford) was c 5'10".
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Penny S:
quote:
I wonder if taller people do not need to put others down to maintain their sense of status.
I know quite a lot of short men who are not misogynists, including my husband, who is about an inch shorter than I am - although he is not a bishop, either.

[ 10. December 2014, 09:34: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


The ConEvo isn't just misogynist as some abstract concept, he marries a woman of his own so he can make her feel 'special': this process involves the following

I know lots of married conservative evangelicals, and I don't know any marriages like this amongst them.

But, y'know, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. It's clearly making you feel better.

[ 10. December 2014, 10:33: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
Though I don't agree with male headship or headship bishops etc. L'Organist's post was rather ranting! However, there is just a grain of truth in it.

And re eight of bishops - you should check out the bishop of Liverpool.
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
'eight of bishops' ??

I typed height of bishops.

Clearly my computer does not understand this headship lark. It is meant to be subordinate to me.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Sorry L'Organist, with Leprechaun on this. I know many ConEvo male headship supporters, and none with marriages like that. For a start, the most strident male headship supporters I know are female.

I don't think it's on to accuse every married ConEvo male of being an abusive husband.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Whatever label they give themselves or are given - flying bishops (Ebbsfleet etc).
As you don't understand between Forward in Faith (which has flying bishops) and Affirming Catholics (who regard them as a grave departure from catholic order), it is unlikely that your comments on related issues are likely to have been thought through.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I hold no brief for the beggars but I would hope that my support for the ordination of women rested on surer foundations than my tall and willowy* good looks.

Callan
(5'11" since it seems to be an issue)

*Since I've been to the gym regularly. Prior to that I was more one of the stout oaks of England with the emphasis on stout.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And just across into Kent you had Hildenborough Hall... which the smooth-voiced beared NP ran with his (no ex) wife Margaret for a number of years before his move to ASLP...
Sorry, L'organist, but that's a little too gnomic for me. Who? What? ASLP? [Confused]

(I know Hildenborough Hall. When I was a teen, the youth group went there a few times for weekends. I remember Justyn Rees (or Rust in Peace, as we called him). There was a guy called Max as well, I think. It was a long time ago...)
You mean Max Sinclair. I worked on the domestic staff at HH for a student summer job 1981. Vaguely remember the name Nick Page, now that someone mentioned it.
That's the guy. He was in a bad car accident, I seem to remember. My lot used to hang out there in the late 70's.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Definitely the wrong sort of misogyny - how can you call yourself a true woman hater and yet wear lace, for God's sake?

The ConEvo isn't just misogynist as some abstract concept, he marries a woman of his own so he can make her feel 'special': this process involves the following
Makes the average lace-wearing, gin-sipping AC look like a saint.

Share flying bishops? No AC bishop, however misogynistic, could ever approach the true woman-hating credentials, or hypocrisy, of a 'headship believer.
Sounds like someone's spiked your gin with Toilet Duck (perhaps even Pledge). Eat less cheese before bedtime old chap.

In getting on for 40 years in Con Evo circles, I've never met anyone remotely like that. Truth be told I've met a lot of feisty women including my own wife and 3 daughters who would never do anything just because a man told them to.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
In my limited exposure to headship folk, I have to say I wouldn't have wanted to take on any of the wives, and from observation neither did their husbands. They might preach headship, but the ladies told them what to decide [Biased]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Certainly the most noticeable headship people in the CoE are female.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
False conscientiousness/ Stockholm syndrome.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
What does his see look like in terms of churchpersonship? I have experience of having a male headship bishop (+Benn) but Lewes is a distinctly con evo see.
I'm a bit bemused by the idea of a diocese, let alone an episcopal area, having a distinctive churchpersonship. Of course, some take on the flavour of successive bishops to a large degree, but I don't know of anywhere in England that could be described as 'a con-evo see.' There will always be a large proportion of parishes of a different flavour, surely; even in Lewes?

Anyway, I think the idea of the 'headship' bishop is to be the equivalent for con-evos what the other flying bishops are to the F-in-F anglo-catholics. I doubt if he (and it is definitely a 'sic') will have much to do with Maidstone as such unless there are parishes there that seek his jurisdiction. But I may have got that wrong.
I think we need to be clear that there is no "Diocese of Maidstone".

As I understand it (in other words - not giving a flying fuck enough to bother checking my details), the Bishop of Maidstone will effectively be a ConEvo flying bishop, dealing with ConEvo parishes across the country which don't want to deal with their own diocesan bishops.

(What I am unclear about is whether this simply applies to ConEvo parishes who find themselves with a woman diocesan bishop, or whether ANY ConEvo parish could look to +Maidstone rather than their bishop, simply out of choice. Whilst the former is what would make most sense, I suspect that the latter is what will happen anyway.)

What is immediately clear is that +Maidstone is likely to be doing some heavy travelling. Will he be going from Carlisle to Truro and from Lewes to Norfolk? Who will be paying for this travelling? And how long will it be before the demand comes for a northern ConEvo bishop as well?
If the Church of England is going to start appointing titular bishops we should do what the Roman Catholics do and appoint them to Sees which are in partibus infidelium. I think that Bishop of Riyadh and Archimandrite of the Lone and Level Sands would look very good on the letter heading.

Presumably, he's not going to be equipped with the entirety of a Diocesan staff, so one imagines that presumably those parishes in communion with him will continue to look to their local Church House for CRBs and the like. Most Con Evo churches tend to be in the pleasant and leafy parts of the South East with good rail links (with the notable exception of Jesmond Parish Church), so generally the travelling won't be too onerous. So he'll basically do Confirmations and Ordinations in situations where the local Bishop will be deemed insufficiently manly, lead summer Bible camps and whatnot and issue ritual condemnations of gay marriage and uppity women and call for tolerance and amity when it looks like the balance of forces are against the cause of Manliness "Let The Brethren Dwell In Amity" and for rigorous policing of orthodoxy when the shoe is on the other foot "Let Us Drive The False Brethren Out From Among Us". Oh, and very little administration and an agreeable house in central London.

Nice work, if you can get it. Perhaps I'll apply. If appointed I will wear my butchest lace cotta.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Please, Callan, can I be your titular Diocesan Music Advisor? Please?

I've got my own cassock, if that helps [Snigger]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
False conscientiousness/ Stockholm syndrome.
Gosh, doesn't seem to me that it's the headship folks being demeaning to women compared to this comment!
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I was a bit :/ about that comment too. I know a LOT of pro-headship women, and I wouldn't describe any of them as suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. That's a serious form of brainwashing and I don't think it's appropriate to use against people just because they disagree. I'm not pro-headship in the slightest and think it's misogynistic bollocks, but those who believe in it are PEOPLE. Not issues. You don't get to say they're brainwashed just because you disagree.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, on reflection that was a hasty and inadequate post. I thought about it a bit afterwards and although I would not discount the possibility of a bit of conditioning- Lukes' third face of power and all that- I wonder whether one of the attractions of 'headship' to some women, inexplicable as it would otherwise seem to be, might be that it might define a clear role and area of responsibility for women, in which they are not challenged by men. Is that a bit more plausible and explanation?
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Conservative evangelicals, in my experience at least, do tend to value clearly-defined roles generally. There's definitely an attitude that God gave men and women (naturally no mention of those who are neither men nor women, whether talking about gender or sex) separate roles as a blessing.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Yes, I'd go along with that reading.

The one 'headship' believing woman I know well was formerly a Roman Catholic and of the ultra-observant kind. She has actually said the thing she found most comfortable about catholicism was the clear lines of what she should believe, and that her brief flirtation with the CofE was unsettling.

I never quite worked out why she left the RCs, other than that she was divorced by her husband (without her consent) some years after he walked out on the family: I've a feeling she felt she couldn't remain an RC as a divorcee, even if she was the one abandoned and divorced.

But now she goes to a ConEvo place and is into the 'headship' thing [Confused]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
False conscientiousness/ Stockholm syndrome.
Gosh, doesn't seem to me that it's the headship folks being demeaning to women compared to this comment!
Yeah, it's consciousness, not conscientiousness. Honestly.

I know that when they need someone to go into bat for the cause of Manliness the often send a woman onto the Today programme but I'm pretty sure that the leading figures of Manliness are all, men. Call me cynical but I suspect that the high profile ladies play much the same role as Ms. Bolter was expected to play for UKIP.

It's not an exact analogy, of course. I'll be upset if my daughter announces that she has taken up with a leading player in the Headship malarkey. If she takes up with the Pound Shop Powellites my options will include a shotgun and the no dating before the age of forty rule.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I'm not at all into this male headship thing but I think it's a shame not to afford the other side the faintest sliver of a possibility that they hold their views in good faith and without borderline-pathological psychological overlay.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Agreed. I think it is false to assume that people only hold views that are disadvantageous to them personally if they have been forced into those views. People don't only believe stuff that it's in their interest to believe.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If the Church of England is going to start appointing titular bishops we should do what the Roman Catholics do and appoint them to Sees which are in partibus infidelium. I think that Bishop of Riyadh and Archimandrite of the Lone and Level Sands would look very good on the letter heading.
I was going to suggest Bishop of Dunwich, after a. the lost Saxon diocese that sank beneath the waves and b. the source of nameless Lovecraftian horrors, but it seems that post is already taken... [Eek!]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Given the tenor of the whole concept, I propose that all "roving" bishops should name their sees after the creations of Gordon Murray. Reading the website of the Diocese of Richborough, I would suggest that the Trumpton diocese is already in existence.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I was going to suggest Bishop of Dunwich, after a. the lost Saxon diocese that sank beneath the waves and b. the source of nameless Lovecraftian horrors, but it seems that post is already taken... [Eek!]
Yes, although it is currently vacant.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm not at all into this male headship thing but I think it's a shame not to afford the other side the faintest sliver of a possibility that they hold their views in good faith and without borderline-pathological psychological overlay.
I agree with this, and more importantly, it was promised as part of the agreement which has amde possible the appointemnt of women bishops.

"The Church's bishops committed themselves to making episcopal provision for conservative evangelicals as well as traditionalists as the legislation to consecrate women bishops progressed successfully through General Synod and Parliament earlier this year."

Whatever people might feel about these dinosaurs, misogynists or whatever you think them to be, the House of Bishops of the Church of England is committed to the five guiding principles which accompany the legislation. Priciple 4 calls for those who oppose the majority to be permitted to "flourish" within the existing life and structures of the C of E.

It would be a mistake to start this process with bad faith. An agreement has been reached, which has taken years to achieve, and caused gridlock in the C of E for a decade. It really is time for all sides to stop grumbling and get on with the momentous task of reversing the secularisation of Britain.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
The problem is that condoning misogyny is an impediment to that goal. If the church is equivocal about whether it opposes the oppression and subjugation of women then why would anyone look to it for moral or spiritual leadership?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem is that condoning misogyny is an impediment to that goal .
If you think that appointing a ConEvo or a Forward in Faith bishop is "condoning misogyny" then what do you make of the five guiding principles? Should they be abolished, now the vote has gone in favour? What of the integrity of House of Bishops in making those provisions?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I must say I wouldn't have made those promises if it was me. But I don't wear purple or have access to funny hats/sticks and I wasn't consulted. And perhaps that was the only way of getting the changes through. So having made the promises, yes I would feel obliged to stick to them.

(By the way I think it is consistent to be uncompromising in terms of the desired political solution while still presuming good faith on the part of one's opponents).
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If you think that appointing a ConEvo or a Forward in Faith bishop is "condoning misogyny" then what do you make of the five guiding principles? Should they be abolished, now the vote has gone in favour? What of the integrity of House of Bishops in making those provisions?
The provisions should never have been made in the first place.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
As I say above I agree - but what if that would have resulted in no progress at all? Personally I respect a little use of realpolitik, but only if done with integrity.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Agreed. I think it is false to assume that people only hold views that are disadvantageous to them personally if they have been forced into those views. People don't only believe stuff that it's in their interest to believe.
And, of course, there are plenty of free thinking educated women who have come to this point of view because they think it is to their advantage.

Some of this theological bias - they think it is in the Bible and therefore must be good.

But some is lived experience. I remember speaking to a woman once who worked part time in a public body with an extensive equalities policy, and part time for a "headship" style church. Her reflection was that the men in the church treated her much better, more respectfully, with more concern for her perceptions, feelings and opinions than any men (even those who worked for her!) did in her other job.

Which is not an argument for headship. But does explain why some women seem so strongly in favour of it.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
Leprechaun that is interesting. What kind of role did she have in the church? In headship churches usually the only women working for them are in youth and children's work (the acceptable church work role for Nice Christian Girls!), or in women's ministry if the church has such a thing. Or, of course, the pastor/vicar/curate's wife, which though unpaid is really a job in itself.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Leprechaun that is interesting. What kind of role did she have in the church? In headship churches usually the only women working for them are in youth and children's work (the acceptable church work role for Nice Christian Girls!), or in women's ministry if the church has such a thing. Or, of course, the pastor/vicar/curate's wife, which though unpaid is really a job in itself.
I'm not sure - it was some sort of pastoral role - I guess primarily with women as you say. It was only a passing conversation!
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If you think that appointing a ConEvo or a Forward in Faith bishop is "condoning misogyny" then what do you make of the five guiding principles? Should they be abolished, now the vote has gone in favour? What of the integrity of House of Bishops in making those provisions?
I would say (and have argued) that we (the CofE) should certainly make provision as promised for the minority views on this issue. But..

1. There is a real difference between the 'catholic' objection and the ConEvo one. Those opposed for catholic/traditional reasons think that the ministry of the bishop is essential to the church, and that women (or those who derive their orders from women) can't be bishops. ConEvos who object do so because of perceived biblical limits on female authority.

2. Therefore, while there is a catholic argument (a bad one, in my view, but still) for having a special line of bishops, all of whom are guaranteed able to piss standing up, kept pure and distinct for the catholics in perpetuity, all the ConEvos need is a cock under the mitre right now. The me-too-ism of the demand for a specific office to be set apart for a 'headship' bishop isn't something that needs to be accepted as necessary to accommodate the ConEvo position.

3. The idea that a member of the church needs to have a bishop with whom he or she agrees on an issue about which Christians may in good faith differ is distinctly unAnglican. It doesn't happen on any other issue. There is a diversity of opinions in the pews, and a diversity of opinions among the bishops, and that's all good, but we don't, as a church, generally think that fair provision has not been made for A. N. Churchgoer if he happens to have a bishop with whom he disagrees.


And, yes, appointing a bishop for the express purpose of ensuring that no one in a sub-set of the church need ever take orders from a person with a vagina is, quite blatantly, condoning misogyny. If we promised to do it as part of the price of allowing women whom God is calling exercise their vocations, then we may be morally obliged to condone misogyny to that extent, but we don't need to pretend that it's anything other than what it is.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Met up with some of my extended family who are almost exclusively into the male-headship thing.

Very interesting conversations - and I managed not to lose my temper! But the most interesting thing was the admission by nearly all of them that as far as they're concerned the only point of the whole 'we must have our own meal-headship-believing-bishop' thing is to do with getting a voice in the House of Bishops, etc.

As one put it: we actually don't see the point of bishops, we don't want them or need them, but since we're under the umbrella of the CofE which has them, then we'll have one who fits in with us. But if the Archbishop thinks that means we accept him as a leader or having authority he's quite wrong.

Food for thought?
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Met up with some of my extended family who are almost exclusively into the male-headship thing.

Very interesting conversations - and I managed not to lose my temper! But the most interesting thing was the admission by nearly all of them that as far as they're concerned the only point of the whole 'we must have our own meal-headship-believing-bishop' thing is to do with getting a voice in the House of Bishops, etc.

As one put it: we actually don't see the point of bishops, we don't want them or need them, but since we're under the umbrella of the CofE which has them, then we'll have one who fits in with us. But if the Archbishop thinks that means we accept him as a leader or having authority he's quite wrong.

Food for thought?
That fits in with my experience. ConEvos see bishops as pastor-managers, essentially, no kind of sacramental role.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The provisions should never have been made in the first place.
This may be so, but as opponents of the provision such as mdijon and Eliab have acknowledged, they have been made, so do you dispute that the Church of England is morally obliged to honour them? You have to remember that when the November 2012 Synod defeated the measure, it was probably because sufficient numbers thought that an absence of prvision for dissenters was wrong. Not that they didn't want women bishops. And there was the threat that parliament might take the matter out of the hands of the C of E, so the House of Bishops came up with proposals which have been carried by the Synod, and by parliament. That must be considered morally binding if the Church is to have any integrity.

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is a real difference between the 'catholic' objection and the ConEvo one.
There has been a very unholy alliance between Forward in Faith and ConEvo's and I say that because they have nothing whatever in common in what they believe the Church to be. As L'Organist points out, ConEvo's don't even believe in bishops. When I was a member of FiF, I never had any theological difficulties with women in the priesthood, just a hope for the ecclesiology of the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which I believed the C of E to be a part. Now that I've returned after finding the Ordinariate not for me, I do so in full acceptance of what the C of E has decided.

quote:
If we promised to do it as part of the price of allowing women whom God is calling exercise their vocations, then we may be morally obliged to condone misogyny to that extent, but we don't need to pretend that it's anything other than what it is.
Yet I still agree with this. Promises made to win votes carry commitment. They are churchmen, not politicians!
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This may be so, but as opponents of the provision such as mdijon and Eliab have acknowledged, they have been made, so do you dispute that the Church of England is morally obliged to honour them? You have to remember that when the November 2012 Synod defeated the measure, it was probably because sufficient numbers thought that an absence of prvision for dissenters was wrong. Not that they didn't want women bishops. And there was the threat that parliament might take the matter out of the hands of the C of E, so the House of Bishops came up with proposals which have been carried by the Synod, and by parliament. That must be considered morally binding if the Church is to have any integrity.
The problem is that the provisions themselves lack any integrity - the Church has the option of perpetuating misogyny or admitting that it made a mistake, returning to synod and placing the responsibility for providing alternative provision solely in the hands of and at the discretion of the diocesan Bishop. I've no desire to see the Church of England try and expel folk who believe these things, but I do think the Church of England should expect public conformity to the practices of the Church. I expect, for example, Holy Communion to be celebrated only by Priests, even if some members of the CofE are convinced that the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers allows anyone to celebrate. The Church considers the ministry of men and women to be equally valid, and as far back as the 20s and 30s the Lambeth Conference was urging all provinces to provide for women to lead worship and to preach, even if ordination was not then approved. The headship doctrine has not been part of Anglican teaching in living memory, and headship supporters cannot make the same claim as Anglo-Catholics that the church has moved while they have not.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
Personally, I think that the "provisions" were ill-advised and actually unnecessary. I think it showed a complete lack of faith in the rightness of what the C of E was doing.I am not saying that those who disagree should be ejected forcibly, but that there needs to be a clear statement of what the C of E believes in this matter. It cannot, in integrity, say that it commits itself wholeheartedly to equality between men and women if it is also making peculiar provisions which perpetuate antiquated and unjust practices and beliefs.

Having said that, the provisions WERE made. So the C of E has to abide by them. But I would say this - that there should be no repeat of the debacle over women priests, where people were making promises "for all time" that clearly could not be kept. In other words, these provisions have to have some sense of "provisionality" about them. They cannot be set in stone - they must be reviewed in the future. To put it bluntly - they should have clearly marked "Best Before" date on them...

Personally, I find these provisions highly regrettable and I would find it very hard to now return to the C of E whilst they are in place. Living and working within a deeply unjust organisation, whose discriminatory practices I cannot support, is something I don't want to do any more - for the sake of my own integrity and spiritual well-being.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
but I do think the Church of England should expect public conformity to the practices of the Church.
I think it does already, because priciple 2 is:

[2] Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must be prepared to acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter;

there may be some of these Headship types, and FiF supporters who still disagree with the outcome, but their ministers have to acknowledge the settled will of the Church of England. My opinion would be let's hit the ground running and see how the arrangements work. They can always be put to the Synod again if pressure groups don't abide by the spirit of the principles, but they require a two thirds majority in every House for change.
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
There is quite a difference between the (rather general) principles we accepted in GS and the specifics of what is or might be happening. It is the latter to which many are objecting.

For example, we might well want all people of whatever view on O/W to flourish in the CofE, but it is the flourishing of the people and not necessarily the views that is in view. So we do not want to drive people out just because we disagree with them, but we may need to say that we cannot condone all their views. This is precisely where we are at with the 'headship' bishop. Certain forms of headship doctrine are adrift from Trinitarian orthodoxy so we have to say 'not on those grounds' and certain forms lead to misogyny so we have to say no there too.

The bishops' declaration offered a voice in the college (not house) of bishops to the headship view - there is still a lot of scope for different ways for this to be delivered.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Charles Read
You don't seem to get it: the whole 'doctrine' of headship is anathema to many of us and for good reason since it effectively devalues over 50% of the regular worshippers in the Church of England.

Now I'm aware that many ConEvos are no more genuinely CofE than a cat, but that doesn't mean that we should let them get away with their obnoxious bigoted and biased behaviours. Talk of 'complementarity' is not any kind of excuse, its just a BS attempt to defend the indefensible.

And the headship and complementarity nonsense is also damaging to the many women who don't fit into the "wives-mothers-homemakers" mould approved of by the ConEvos.

As for keeping some nebulous promise made by the ABC: ++Justin had no business to make any such commitment and if he is now shown to have been either taken in by or bending rules for the ConEvo lobby good - maybe people will wake up to the fact that he was a bad choice for Durham and a catastrophic choice for Canterbury.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Charles Read
You don't seem to get it: the whole 'doctrine' of headship is anathema to many of us and for good reason since it effectively devalues over 50% of the regular worshippers in the Church of England.
Odd that you say CR doesn't get it - I don't think he's arguing for male headship or tolerance of male headship at all.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

And the headship and complementarity nonsense is also damaging to the many women who don't fit into the "wives-mothers-homemakers" mould approved of by the ConEvos.

I call bollocks. As many people have pointed out on this thread (and you have ignored) many headship proponents are professional women.
 
Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :
 
New bishop of Stockport announced --

to be Bishop Libby [Votive]
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
As many people have pointed out on this thread (and you have ignored) many headship proponents are professional women.
Although the point's worth making that no special provision is needed to accommodate this class. Women who, for theological reasons, are happy to concede some measure of primacy to men can do this of their own free will in any insitutional structure likely to prevail in the church.

We only need to make accommodation when we are trying to prevent women who do not have such scruples from actually being in authority. The effect of institutionalising male headship is not to enable women who freely wish to submit (they can do that anyway), it is to frustrate those women who don't believe in headship from fulfilling any vocation that they may have to leadership.

Assuming that headship-believing women have no problem with women's leadership of other women, but only of them being in charge of men, the only people who need protecting from women bishops are headship-believing men. There's something just ever so slightly ridiculous about all these masculine men with this inherent natural authority and God-given headship pleading for institutional protection in case they end up having to do what a woman tells them.

Fine, if we promised to look after them, then let's agree that believing in headship isn't automatically a bar to ministry so long as you accept that you're part of a church that does not believe or practice it, and let's agree always to have at least one male bishop available to cater for anyone who's really really scared of women being in charge, but I can see absolutely no reason to set aside a particular church office for male sexists only. That seems to me to be calculated to make us look bigotted and foolish.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
As many people have pointed out on this thread (and you have ignored) many headship proponents are professional women.
Although the point's worth making that no special provision is needed to accommodate this class. Women who, for theological reasons, are happy to concede some measure of primacy to men can do this of their own free will in any insitutional structure likely to prevail in the church.

Well quite. The actual arrangement is obviously a mess of pottage. I was disagreeing with the idea that the pro headship women are all wives and mothers. Just not the case IME.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
I wasn't saying that pro headship women are all wives, mothers & homemakers; I was saying that for some believers in headship - especially male proponents - the accepted female roles are those of wife, mother & homemaker.

I know there are professional women who go along with the headship business - I've met a few; But you cannot use them as a figleaf to cover the belief by a lot of the male headship clan that would see a woman's professional life as being secondary to any familial responsibilities she might have.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I wasn't saying that pro headship women are all wives, mothers & homemakers; I was saying that for some believers in headship - especially male proponents - the accepted female roles are those of wife, mother & homemaker.

I know there are professional women who go along with the headship business - I've met a few; But you cannot use them as a figleaf to cover the belief by a lot of the male headship clan that would see a woman's professional life as being secondary to any familial responsibilities she might have.
Actually you said that headship was damaging to women who didn't want to be wives and mothers. Which is rubbish.

And I think that a woman's professional life should be secondary to their family life. Strangely I also think that about men and their jobs.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
We have never had flying bishops for any reason here and are most unlikely to get them. The nearest was when CCSL would invite + Riverina to visit and carry out some confirmations at the same time.

Surely it is now too late to complain abut their introduction to cater for those who espouse male headship? That was the deal done to enable the appointment of women bishops. Disagree as we may with the deal, it having been made it should be honoured.
 
Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
For example, we might well want all people of whatever view on O/W to flourish in the CofE, but it is the flourishing of the people and not necessarily the views that is in view. So we do not want to drive people out just because we disagree with them, but we may need to say that we cannot condone all their views.
Are you the Charles Read of WATCH? Can I be clear that you're saying that it's ok to be a traditionalist, but not for traditionalists to spread their views, because if so, that more than slightly creepy. It's downright sinister.

x

AV
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Nothing creepy or sinister about that, if it is what he's saying: by all means stay and work out your vocation within the CofE of you can, but don't try to undermine the settled position that the Church has taken.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Are you the Charles Read of WATCH? Can I be clear that you're saying that it's ok to be a traditionalist, but not for traditionalists to spread their views, because if so, that more than slightly creepy. It's downright sinister.

x

AV
I think it's just treating headship in the same way as other heterodox, bordering on heretical, viewpoints - you can believe it all you want, you can tell other people that's what you believe, but you must accept that the church should not facilitate you promoting those views. That applies whether it is headship, ultramontanism, donatism, Arianism or anything else.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I wasn't saying that pro headship women are all wives, mothers & homemakers; I was saying that for some believers in headship - especially male proponents - the accepted female roles are those of wife, mother & homemaker.

I know there are professional women who go along with the headship business - I've met a few; But you cannot use them as a figleaf to cover the belief by a lot of the male headship clan that would see a woman's professional life as being secondary to any familial responsibilities she might have.
Actually you said that headship was damaging to women who didn't want to be wives and mothers. Which is rubbish.

And I think that a woman's professional life should be secondary to their family life. Strangely I also think that about men and their jobs.
IME, headship views are damaging to woman who don't want to be wives and mothers, and to those who (God forbid) want to work *and* have a family. But I grant we all have different experiences, and this could all get a bit panto (Oh yes it does, oh no it doesn't).

This reminds me of the everyday sexism type conversations - just because I personally haven't been wolf-whistled, sexually harassed and followed down the street recently, doesn't mean it isn't still happening to other women.

And oh! for the time when family life takes precedence for men and women. But in my experience and those of my (working mother) friends, women are still expected to take the career hits both short and long term - by their colleagues, their bosses, society in general and ourselves, God help us, and so there are fewer women higher up the work chain, we don't apply for the jobs, and lo the merry go round continues.

Er. Sorry. [Hot and Hormonal] I may have got somewhat carried away there......
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
IME, headship views are damaging to woman who don't want to be wives and mothers, and to those who (God forbid) want to work *and* have a family. But I grant we all have different experiences, and this could all get a bit panto (Oh yes it does, oh no it doesn't).
Yes. I have certainly seen this in (especially non-conformist) conservative circles. My point in this discussion is that a lot of the Anglican pro-headship people seem to be professional women. So a suggestion that part of this movement in Anglicanism at this moment is to confine women to the home seems...well...untrue.

quote:

And oh! for the time when family life takes precedence for men and women. But in my experience and those of my (working mother) friends, women are still expected to take the career hits both short and long term - by their colleagues, their bosses, society in general and ourselves, God help us, and so there are fewer women higher up the work chain, we don't apply for the jobs, and lo the merry go round continues.

Well yes. Although to lay this problem at the feet of Christians who believe in male leadership in the church seems somewhat unfair! [Biased]
 
Posted by Charles Read (# 3963) on :
 
And here he is:
Voila!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Looks like just the sort of stinker you might expect. I hope that his ministry is short and unfulfilling. Shame on the CofE for ever agreeing to create such an abominable appointment. I am so pleased that I moved to Wales.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Looks like just the sort of stinker you might expect. I hope that his ministry is short and unfulfilling. Shame on the CofE for ever agreeing to create such an abominable appointment.
Couldn't have put it better myself, Albertus. Although on a personal level, it's nice to see the CofE confirming that my retiring was the right thing to do.
 
Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :
 
From the Lambeth Palace press release
quote:
Rod Thomas’s specific duties as Bishop of Maidstone will include: fostering vocations from those taking a conservative evangelical position on headship; undertaking episcopal ministry (with the agreement of the relevant diocesan bishop) in dioceses in both Provinces where PCCs have passed the requisite resolution under the House of Bishops’ declaration; and being available to act (again by invitation) as an assistant bishop in a number of dioceses.
So much for bishops as a "focus of unity". I suppose that only applies to exclude (celibate) gay people. It's fine if you're a sexist, homophobic member of the Executive Committee of the so-called Anglican Mission in England.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
The whole thing is a ghastly clerical error. They were planning to appoint Rod Liddle and there was a typo in the press release.

Well, it could have been worse...

Um. I'll get back to you with regard to that one.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
OK - the game is up. The C of E has thrown in the towel against AMiE and GAFCON without even an attempt at a fight. How can someone like Thomas, who is part of an organisation that is actively working against the C of E then be made a bishop in it? How is that going to work when AMiE try and plant congregations in dioceses? Craven capitulation. [Mad]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Dead right. Bloody craven spineless bastards.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I'm having a bit of a logic attack here with regards to the duty of "fostering vocations from those taking a conservative evangelical position on headship". We are expecting God to continue calling such men (cunning omission of the correct pronoun) despite their beliefs, are we? In which case, we must be believing that God is on their side, despite our now ordering the church in a different way.

Doesn't make sense.

Actually, I now expect an answer along the lines of the one I got from my teacher, when, aged 11, I pointed out the fit between Africa and South America. "Don't be silly, Penny."

[ 05. May 2015, 16:47: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
But folks, remember the CofE's ruling principle in matters like this: the Evos have all the money.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Albertus
quote:
Bloody craven spineless bastards.
Spot on.

Question: what's with RT's hair? Strangely bouffant, almost as if someone has spent a lot of time and effort back-combing it...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But folks, remember the CofE's ruling principle in matters like this: the Evos have all the money.
But not all evos are headship evos. I was talking to someone last month- most definitely not a conevo or I'd imagine an evo of any kind- who works for the Diocese of London and was praising very clearly the generosity of HTB and similar places, which contribute way over their quota to the diocese because they can afford to and so think they should.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Albertus
quote:
Bloody craven spineless bastards.
Spot on.

Question: what's with RT's hair? Strangely bouffant, almost as if someone has spent a lot of time and effort back-combing it...
I noticed that - it looks like one of the characters from "3rd Rock from the Sun", and though I missed the opening episode, I understand one of its running jokes was that the aliens had taken forms which resulted in the commander having the form of a young woman and the subordinate having the form of the older male with the hair.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
How appropriate!
I hope that at least one Diocesan will have the guts to stand up and say 'Rod Thomas as Assistant Bishop in my diocese? Over my dead body'.
Words cannot express my fury and disgust at this whole business. I know I'm not CofE any more (I'm very definitely not CofE anymore, and this is one of the reasosn I say that) but it's the Church I grew up in and a sister province so I still care about it. Fuck all this weaselly talk of 'disagreeing well', of 'mutual flourishing': these Headship bastards wouldn't piss around with that for a moment if they were in charge. Thank God for the Welsh Church Act 1914.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
OK - the game is up. The C of E has thrown in the towel against AMiE and GAFCON without even an attempt at a fight. How can someone like Thomas, who is part of an organisation that is actively working against the C of E then be made a bishop in it? How is that going to work when AMiE try and plant congregations in dioceses? Craven capitulation. [Mad]
Much as those who joined the ordinariate by the sound of it.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Can any good come out of Creamtealand?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
If the Headship believers were honest they'd all have left the CofE on 6th February 1952; they'd certainly never agree to holding any position of authority in a church with a woman as Supreme Governor.

As for Mr Thomas now agreeing to be a bishop in same church - and thus subordinate to a woman - hypocrite!

One feels bound to ask what these Headship wallahs do when taking the oath before their ordination - do they stand there with their fingers crossed?

[ 07. May 2015, 14:13: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
In all seriousness, that's a question I've often wondered about, but never heard answered. Anyone out there have enough insight into how the 'headship' mind works to offer an answer?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Could it be something like the Egyptian attitude to Hatshepshut, that the anointing of a Queen somehow endows her with an invisible maleness (like Hatshepshut's visible beard), trumping the obvious accident of her femaleness? Offer only available to sovereigns. And, of course, she doesn't actually do anything with her nominal headship. Like issuing mandates to particular bishops.
It isn't canonical, of course, but I recall that somewhere in one of the odder Gospels something is said about making Mary Magdalene as a man, when the disciples query her being included with them. That could be extended to monarchs, I suppose. If you go in for believing impossible things before breakfast.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


1. If the Headship believers were honest they'd all have left the CofE on 6th February 1952; they'd certainly never agree to holding any position of authority in a church with a woman as Supreme Governor.

2. One feels bound to ask what these Headship wallahs do when taking the oath before their ordination - do they stand there with their fingers crossed?
1. The Supreme Governor is only a man made construct. The ultimate responsibility is to God who transcends gender.

2. See 1. above - but perhaps they DO cross their fingers rather like the very high % of Anglican Priests who do so when assenting to the (Calvinist and anti catholic) 39 Articles. The local priest had no coherent answer to the latter when i asked him ...
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
In all seriousness, that's a question I've often wondered about, but never heard answered. Anyone out there have enough insight into how the 'headship' mind works to offer an answer?
From my experience, I think that this is a red herring. The monarch (male or female) is regarded as the equivalent of an Honorary President. They have no real authoriity and so issues of "headship" do not come into play.

The real problem for headship people (and especially bishops) will be when there is a woman archbishop.
 
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :
 
(Oops. Forgot something...)

I should have also added that (again, in my own experience) most "headship" clergy would be completely unfazed by disestablishment - in fact many would probably welcome it. So the C of E loses its Honorary President? Who cares?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:


1. If the Headship believers were honest they'd all have left the CofE on 6th February 1952; they'd certainly never agree to holding any position of authority in a church with a woman as Supreme Governor.

2. One feels bound to ask what these Headship wallahs do when taking the oath before their ordination - do they stand there with their fingers crossed?
1. The Supreme Governor is only a man made construct. The ultimate responsibility is to God who transcends gender.

2. See 1. above - but perhaps they DO cross their fingers rather like the very high % of Anglican Priests who do so when assenting to the (Calvinist and anti catholic) 39 Articles. The local priest had no coherent answer to the latter when i asked him ...
Moat Anglican priests throughout the world don't have to say or swear anything at all about the 39 articles, and haven't for many decades. Nor if they move to England do they have to do so to receive a license to officiate or accept a post.

And I'm sure I've been told that the requirement to swear is no longer there in the CofE -- much less in the Church in Wales or the Scottish Piskies.

In any case, the most notorious swearer without belief was not any of the Anglo-Catholics you've ever heard of -- it was that low-church icon Benjamin Jowett who notoriously said, when told he would have to subscribe to the articles which he had publicly criticised "Bring me a pen."

John
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Most Anglican priests throughout the world don't have to say or swear anything at all about the 39 articles, and haven't for many decades. Nor if they move to England do they have to do so to receive a license to officiate or accept a post.

And I'm sure I've been told that the requirement to swear is no longer there in the CofE --
I don't know about the position overseas but all the installations I've attended (quite a few recently) have included reference to the 39 articles. These are all in the UK.

I'd say that only one of the 10 or so, would affirm the whole of the 39 articles if you asked him direct.

I always wonder at a situation when someone is prepared to cross their fingers over one thing, where they might do the same in other situatins.

[fixed code]

[ 09. May 2015, 06:35: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I've never taken an oath that I couldn't take in good conscience. I wouldn't. But it does pay to know what oaths do say, and what they don't.

The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law". (Notice that if you're a republican, you can even hope that her "successor according to law" is a President, and you're still covered!) The Oath of Obedience is to your bishop "in all things lawful and honest".

The bit about the Articles is in another thing, the Declaration of Assent. The Declaration says that the Church of England is catholic and apostolic in nature. Further, it says that the CofE has
quote:
borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons.
You then have to
quote:
affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God
Now, I don't see anything there about believing that the 39 Articles are anything more than a piece of archaeology, if that's how you want to take them. Personally, I think you should know the Articles, know what they actually say, and that if you want to argue with them, you'd better have a good argument. But I think that easily lets me say the Declaration with a good conscience.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law".

The Declaration says that the Church of England is catholic and apostolic in nature. Further, it says that the CofE has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion,
I'd disagree with you on both counts. An oath of Allegiance to the Queen is exactly that: whatever you may hope for in her successor or as her successor by taking the oath you are accepting that you "owe" her allegiance.

With the 39 Articles you are affirming that they are on a par with the historic formularies of the faith. You are affirming that the CofE is bearing witness to this truth. Since the 39 reject the mass and affirm a calvinistic view of salvation, you are affirming to a reformed theology.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
With the 39 Articles you are affirming that they are on a par with the historic formularies of the faith. You are affirming that the CofE is bearing witness to this truth. Since the 39 reject the mass and affirm a calvinistic view of salvation, you are affirming to a reformed theology.
We need to be clear here: in the Declaration you are emphatically not placing the Articles on a par with the Bible, sacred Tradition, or Reason. Also, you are not saying that the CofE is bearing witness through them, but that it has borne witness through them.

As to the Articles' alleged Calvinism, I refer you to Tract XC - not because I necessarily believe it, but merely to illustrate that with the right glasses on, you can make the Articles say almost anything you want them to say.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law".

...
I'd disagree with you on both counts. An oath of Allegiance to the Queen is exactly that: whatever you may hope for in her successor or as her successor by taking the oath you are accepting that you "owe" her allegiance.
You're right. TBH I don't really see how you can be both a republican and CofE. There may (or may not) be no technical or logical reason why you can't be both, but culturally the combination just doesn't make sense.

[ 09. May 2015, 21:38: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
[QUOTE] We need to be clear here: in the Declaration you are emphatically not placing the Articles on a par with the Bible, sacred Tradition, or Reason. Also, you are not saying that the CofE is bearing witness through them, but that it has borne witness through them.

As to the Articles' alleged Calvinism, I refer you to Tract XC - not because I necessarily believe it, but merely to illustrate that with the right glasses on, you can make the Articles say almost anything you want them to say.
Nit picking --- if it has borne witness, then what is it doing now? What's changed and on whose permission/agreement?

I can't agree either that the Articles are not put on a par with reason, tradition and scripture. By bracketing the 39 - however tenuously - with the 3, you are including them in the vow.

Yes you can interpret the 39 in more than one way but doesn't the reality of one interpretation that reflects a protestant view cause you concern?

To me as a (now) non Anglican the issue is this: if the 39 are simply an historical allusion as you say - and they are now unclear as to meaning and intent - why do you keep them? If they are considered important why does the CofE ignore them?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
You're right. TBH I don't really see how you can be both a republican and CofE. T
You can't be both - at least you can't give assent to both. The "state" issue is one of a number of reasons why I can't be a member of the CofE anymore.

As an established church the CofE has lost its prophetic voice - and arguably cannot have such a thing as it is irretrievably bound to mammon.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
The bishop of Maidstone was on the Sunday programme on BBC R4 this morning. Sunday, 10th May
Unfortunately, although, unusually, I managed not to drop off to sleep during the programme*, I have managed not to move the item from short term to long term memory. It's about 18 minutes in.

*A problem ever since they moved it from after 8 am to after 7 am.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
He more or less said that he didn't want to be a cause of division but he wanted to provide those congregations that could not deal with a woman bishop the support they needed, but still add the richness and diversity of the worship of the Reform Movement to the nation's pews through his support.

Pretty much as expected, politically bland and unexceptional.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I did rather pick up the idea that he and the churches he is involved with were hoping there would be opportunities to encourage people to study the Bible and work out their understanding of what it teaches. Which I interpreted as "and come to the conviction that we are right".
 
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
With the 39 Articles you are affirming that they are on a par with the historic formularies of the faith. You are affirming that the CofE is bearing witness to this truth. Since the 39 reject the mass and affirm a calvinistic view of salvation, you are affirming to a reformed theology.
We need to be clear here: in the Declaration you are emphatically not placing the Articles on a par with the Bible, sacred Tradition, or Reason. Also, you are not saying that the CofE is bearing witness through them, but that it has borne witness through them.

As to the Articles' alleged Calvinism, I refer you to Tract XC - not because I necessarily believe it, but merely to illustrate that with the right glasses on, you can make the Articles say almost anything you want them to say.
Aren't you saying that the articles are a part of tradition, which uses reason to interpret the Bible and that you are standing in the line of that particular tradition and that thus therefore it is somewhat and somehow binding on you?
The Tract 90 argument has always put me in mind of Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty (obviously YMMV).
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I've never taken an oath that I couldn't take in good conscience. I wouldn't. But it does pay to know what oaths do say, and what they don't.

The two oaths that CofE clergy have to take are the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Obedience. The Oath of Allegiance is to "the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law". (Notice that if you're a republican, you can even hope that her "successor according to law" is a President, and you're still covered!) The Oath of Obedience is to your bishop "in all things lawful and honest".

An equally scrupulous friend, on being offered by his retiring bishop the chance to move from being a (at episcopal pleasure) priest-in-charge to being the legal Vicar with freehold, consulted the Diocesan Registrar on exactly what he would be promising in the Oath of Allegiance. He was told that he was merely acknowledging the obligations all English subjects have to HM in her various capacities: nothing new was involved. So there's no need for republicans to scruple: we are where we are, and have obligations we can't get out of. And the clause about "successors according to law" is actually an escape valve for when the whole nonsense is swept away: the allegiance will pass seamlessly to the new regime, lawfully suceeding--for who makes the laws?--- with no need for another non-juror fiasco.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
Precisely.
 
Posted by fullgospel (# 18233) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by L'organist:
[qb]


2. See 1. above - but perhaps they DO cross their fingers rather like the very high % of Anglican Priests who do so when assenting to the (Calvinist and anti catholic) 39 Articles. The local priest had no coherent answer to the latter when i asked him ...
Church of England clergy do not give assent to the 39 Articles.

That is, they do, no longer.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fullgospel:
[QUOTE]Church of England clergy do not give assent to the 39 Articles. That is, they do, no longer.
It was in the last installation I attended, 2 years ago.

If they don't assent as you claim, then why mention it?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by american piskie:
[QB] [QUOTE]So there's no need for republicans to scruple: we are where we are, and have obligations we can't get out of.

And the clause about "successors according to law" is actually an escape valve for when the whole nonsense is swept away: the allegiance will pass seamlessly to the new regime, lawfully suceeding--for who makes the laws?--- with no need for another non-juror fiasco. [/QB What obligations might that be? I can't see what they are tbh - grace to be extended, yes of course, but we only have obligations to God.

"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by fullgospel:
[QUOTE]Church of England clergy do not give assent to the 39 Articles. That is, they do, no longer.
It was in the last installation I attended, 2 years ago.

If they don't assent as you claim, then why mention it?
This, from the Diocese of Ely (the first one which came up when i googled):

quote:
The Presentation and the Declarations
The Patron leads the Priest before the Bishop who stands at his chair

Patron Reverend Father in God, I present to you A.B. to be admitted to the cure of souls in this parish(es).
Bishop We thank you for your presentation. In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ and as your Bishop, I intend to admit A.B. to the cure of souls in this parish(es). Let the Declaration of Assent be made and subscribed and the Oaths taken according to law.
Bishop The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make, will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making Him known to those in your care?

The Priest, facing the People, makes the Declaration of Assent

Priest I, A.B., do so affirm and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments I will use only the forms of service which are authorised or allowed by Canon.
The Rural Dean hands the Priest the Bible. Facing the people, the Priest holds the Bible and makes the Oath of Allegiance

Priest I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

The Priest turns towards the Bishop for the Oath of Canonical Obedience
Priest I, A.B., do swear by Almighty God that I will pay true and canonical obedience to the Lord Bishop of Ely and his successors in all things lawful and honest. So help me God.

The Declarations are then subscribed
It is about as non-specific an assent to the 39 Articles as you could possibly devise- but it is still a form of assent.
I agree with you about the likely original meaning of 'successors, according to law', but there is just enough wiggle room for republicans, if they look at it in the dusk with the light behind it. But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.

[ 12. May 2015, 08:26: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.

You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.
That's very true and it's one reason - amongst others - why I'm ordained in another denomination (although most of the CofE wouldn't recognise it).
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.

You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
Oh I've considered it and longed for it - I suspect that I am in a very small minority. Sadly this is one minority position in the UK that doesn't grant you any kind of opt out clause. It's bad enough not standing up for things like the national anthem .... no one seems to get "it" that you just done approve!
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.
That's very true and it's one reason - amongst others - why I'm ordained in another denomination...
And that's a very respectable position (not that you need me to say that): you know where you stand, and so does everyone else. You're not taking oaths and making declarations with reservations or with your fingers crossed, and kidding yourself that that makes you some kind of cool rebel, like a fifth-former slipping rude words into the school song on speech day. If there's a conversation to be had, the cards are on the table, and agreements and disagreements can be identified and worked with.

[ 12. May 2015, 21:01: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.

You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
Somewhat to the point, in the innumerable (because I can't be bothered to count them) former colonies and territories once subject to the Crown which have become republics, it has always been the case that oaths of allegiance to HM and his/her heirs and successors have been deemed to transfer seamlessly to the republic.

John
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Very slightly off the point: on the Diamond Jubilee Sunday in 2012 I preached a sermon which, while commending the Queen as a stabilising presence in our society, also questioned the whole idea of Monarchy and pointed out that loyalty to our Dissenting forebears should mean that our church would be completely opposed to the institution.

I don't think many people listened: they just wanted to go home and watch the River Pageant on the TV (and what a disaster that was!)
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Tangent - why do you say the River Pageant was a disaster? I was there and it wasn't. True, it was cold and wet but still fun and tremendous to see all the craft on the river. Mind you, I was on the Tattershall Castle (pub on a moored boat), which might have coloured my view. Possibly the Duke of Edinburgh wasn't so happy.

End of tangent.

M.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
/Re-opens Tangent/ Fair comment. It wasn't so much the Pageant itself, rather the awful BBC coverage, which would have been very poor even if they hadn't had technical problems. /Ends again/

[ 13. May 2015, 06:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by american piskie:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

"Successors" is intended to refer to the Queen's natural succession (ie family). A republican succession has never been considered.
The succession has been changed before: one thinks of the heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia, and the extraordinary (s)election of the William-and-Mary.

You may never have considered a republican succession; I can assure you many others have! My father assured me that most of his fellow wartime commissioned officers were attached to the "according to law" clause in their oath.
Oh I've considered it and longed for it - I suspect that I am in a very small minority. Sadly this is one minority position in the UK that doesn't grant you any kind of opt out clause. It's bad enough not standing up for things like the national anthem .... no one seems to get "it" that you just done approve!
Too true. Not to mention the insult of being told that a Royalist ditty is your National Anthem.

I'm Republican by default; I cannot for the life of me see the sense in elevating one family as somehow special simply because of who their ancestors were. It makes zero sense to me and always has. Somehow I muddle along in thw CofE.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Come on, now, surely a family that can trace itself back to Aphrodite, Woden and Seth has to have something special about it?
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Very slightly off the point: on the Diamond Jubilee Sunday in 2012 I preached a sermon which, while commending the Queen as a stabilising presence in our society, also questioned the whole idea of Monarchy and pointed out that loyalty to our Dissenting forebears should mean that our church would be completely opposed to the institution.
Our dissenting forbears would be horrified at many of our accommodations to culture. I can't help but feel (and I think there's ample evidence for it), that the denomination BT and I share has lost the plot and is losing more of it as time goes by. Our current leadership is anything but.

On that point, can anyone tell me why Buckingham Palace is not subject to the bedroom tax and its two elderly occupants forced into some kind of almshouse?

[ 13. May 2015, 12:33: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I don't think that HRH is a "working-age council or housing association tenant", so not liable to the tax. I doubt if the younger royals are, either.

Strangely my wife, who is a fairly red-blooded Scottish Nationalist Socialist (and a member of our local LibDems to boot), has quite a lot of affection for the Royal family. I can't explain it.

[ 13. May 2015, 13:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Well, lots of Socialists have been monarchists- CR Attlee probably being the prime example- and there's no reason why an independent Scotland couldn't be in personal union with the rump of Ukania, especially since the Royal family are about as Scottish as they are anything else*. In fact, wasn't retention of the monarchy part of the 'Yes' campaign's platform in the independence referendum?

*You probably know the story of HlateM the Queen Mother's reply to the Afrikaner who said that he couldn't forgive the English for what they had done to his country: "As a Scot, I know just how you feel".
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I don't think that HRH is a "working-age council or housing association tenant", so not liable to the tax. I doubt if the younger royals are, either.

Strangely my wife, who is a fairly red-blooded Scottish Nationalist Socialist (and a member of our local LibDems to boot), has quite a lot of affection for the Royal family. I can't explain it.
It's a big house with lots of space. There's alo a big garden ready to dig up for allotments - plenty of manure from all sorts of sources.

Perhaps your wife's affection has something to do with the fact that the Battenburg-Saxe Coburg-Windsors seem to feel they own most of Scotland.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
*You probably know the story of HlateM the Queen Mother's reply to the Afrikaner who said that he couldn't forgive the English for what they had done to his country: "As a Scot, I know just how you feel".
yep sure do. I can't forgive them for what they did to the Fens either
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
[Smile]
What, widening the gene pool? (runs for cover...)

[ 13. May 2015, 23:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
Just read this on Twitter:

quote:
The case for the British monarchy can be summed up in two words: "President Blair"

 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But one thing which I think that you and I both agree on is that being a republican is not really consistent with being CofE, especially with being a CofE cleric.
That's very true and it's one reason - amongst others - why I'm ordained in another denomination...
And that's a very respectable position (not that you need me to say that): you know where you stand, and so does everyone else. You're not taking oaths and making declarations with reservations or with your fingers crossed, and kidding yourself that that makes you some kind of cool rebel, like a fifth-former slipping rude words into the school song on speech day. If there's a conversation to be had, the cards are on the table, and agreements and disagreements can be identified and worked with.
Of course, it helps if there's a suitable other denomination for you to be ordained in! My choice of church is either CoE or RCC, only one of which will ordain me since I am a woman. I don't see how being ordained in another denomination whose theology I don't agree with is more honest than being a republican member of the CoE.

I'm not trying to be a cool rebel, I'm trying to follow the vocation God has called me to without leaving my brain at the door.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Just read this on Twitter:

quote:
The case for the British monarchy can be summed up in two words: "President Blair"
Surely 'King Charles III' makes the case for the British republic? The point is that it's not about individual nice monarchs v individual nasty politicians, but the inherent unfairness of the monarchy. George W Bush having been twice President doesn't suddenly mean the US should have become a monarchy.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
The converse argument in favour of the monarchy is, as I think Palmerston said of the Garter, that 'there's no damn' merit in it'.
I think that the USA would have been a lot better off if it had remained a monarchy (that is, in personal union with the British crown rather than the Spanish or French). Then it might have developed its abundant good qualities to become been as happy and settled a country as say Canada or Australia, rather than the deeply messed up place that it is.

[ 13. May 2015, 23:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting
Oops, too much tangent! Please take the tangent about the royals/republicanism/royal supremacy per se to Purgatory and open a new thread there, if you wish to continue it. Please use this thread for beliefs about male headship and the episcopate.

Many thanks!
Louise
DH Host

hosting off
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0