Thinking Anglicans

Church Times on the archbishops' amendment

Paul Handley reports on this in the Church Times today, see Archbishops propose last-ditch solution on women bishops. It contains this nugget of information:

The amendment has not yet been formally submitted; so it is not known precisely how the Arch­bishops propose to change the draft legislation. They are expected to table the amendment at the last possible moment, 5.30 p.m. next Wednesday (30 June), in order to prevent its being further amended.

And there is a leader, Archbishops’ plan: can it save the day?

LAWYER’S TRICK or work of theological insight? Probably the former. Cutting the Gordian knot, or teasing out enough of a thread for people to cling on to? Probably the latter. Whatever the verdict, it was a good sign that the Archbishops’ intervention in the women-bishops saga on Monday was met, in the main, by puzzled silence. The debate has been going on so long that all the players are adept at spotting hidden agendas, sometimes even when there isn’t one: yes, this sounds concessionary, but where’s the beef? Well, in this instance, the Archbishops claim to have served a generous portion to the traditionalists without taking anything off the plate of the women bishops. Is this true?

Two further articles remain behind the paywall for another week, one by David Houlding and one by Jane Shaw. Only subscribers can read them now. As the news story says:

Prebendary David Houlding, a prominent member of the Catholic group in Synod, writes in this week’s Church Times that the statement “seeks to achieve what is necessary to maintain our unity. . . All this seems to point us in the right direction,” he concludes.

In a contrasting article, the Revd Dr Jane Shaw argues that “enshrining opposition to women bishops — what many people would call miso­gyny — into legislation” oper­ates against the forging of mutually trust­ing relationships. Such relation­ships, she says, need to be “at the heart of any way forward”.

16
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
16 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
susan lomasFather Ron SmithPerry ButlerMalcolm+Tobias Haller Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

“They are expected to table the amendment at the last possible moment, 5.30 p.m. next Wednesday (30 June), in order to prevent its being further amended.”

More stupidity from Lambeth. The less time people have to look over an amendment, the less likely they are to vote for it.

And if Synod thinks the Archbishops are trying to railroad something through, the debate won’t be pretty.

Cynthia Gilliatt
Guest
Cynthia Gilliatt

In American usage, to table a motion or amendment is to vote to put it aside, where it remains unless voted off the table for a yes or no vote. I think I’ve got that right from Roberts Rules.

Obviously it means something different in English usage. Will someone please explain? Thanks. (I may have asked this during some previous meeting and forgotten the answer – if so, I apologize.)

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

Two very intriguing articles have appeared in The Church Times: 1. “At the same time, the diocesan bishop, male or female, would remain “legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese”. He or she would, however, refrain from doing so in a parish that had made a formal; request for a traditional bishop” – Paul Handley – 2. “What the Archbishops have constructed is another fiction – that all can exist constructively within the one body despite opposing views. But, arguably, this is a fiction that accords more closely with the Anglican project, at least,… Read more »

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure)
In parliamentary procedure, a motion to table may have different and contradictory meanings:

* In the United States, the motion to lay on the table (often simply “table”) or the motion to postpone consideration is a proposal to suspend consideration of a pending motion.

* In the United Kingdom and the rest of the English-speaking world, a motion to place upon the table (or motion to place on the table) is a proposal to begin consideration of a proposal.

Jeremy
Guest
Jeremy

I wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury will attempt to make the Synod vote on his amendment a vote of confidence, if you will.

He might hint that if his amendment is rejected, he will resign. Such a hint would ratchet up the pressure considerably.

Even if he doesn’t hint at that, Canterbury and York are going out on a very thin limb.

If Synod cuts it off, what moral standing would they have left? What claim to legitimate leadership?

Cynthia Gilliatt
Guest
Cynthia Gilliatt

Thanks for clarification on tabling in the rest of the world. And to think we claim to share a common language!

Pantycelyn
Guest
Pantycelyn

John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham who is chairman of Forward in Faith, said: “The Archbishops’ amendment is a brave effort to answer
some very serious questions about the dispossession of orthodox Anglicans.

“But I do not quite understand how a traditionalist bishop can work in partnership with a woman bishop while he actually rejects the concept
of her ordination.”

I do not see how people who hold these views with its logical accompanying behaviour can with integrity, remain the stipendiary ministry of the Church of England.

Pantycelyn
Guest
Pantycelyn

‘He might hint that if his amendment is rejected, he will resign. Such a hint would ratchet up the pressure considerably.’

Yes, it would mean that to vote against the amendment would kill two birds with one stone !

What an incentive.

Neil
Guest
Neil

‘I do not see how people who hold these views with its logical accompanying behaviour can with integrity, remain the stipendiary ministry of the Church of England.’

Because this is of secondary order of importance, after the Creeds! You’d be surprised how many people remain within the CofE and take a stipend, and for example do not agree about abortion. Priests within the CofE are ordained into the Church of God – and belief in God is what is important…not in the CofE.

Tobias Haller
Guest

“Dispossession”? What does Broadhurst imagine he possesses? Or perhaps he is possessed? I suppose to the possessive losing what they hold dear appears a form of exorcism. “And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.”

Perry Butler
Guest
Perry Butler

Wasnt quite clear about Neil’s post. Surely for many traditionalist catholics in the Church of England faith and order are seen as indivisible.That would seem to be how the Pope sees it too. In any case who decides what is first order/second order etc?? Some evangelicals tell me the gay issue is first order, lay celebration very much a second order… Anglican theology has historically talked of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals but that became more difficult post “Essays and Reviews” I think Pantecelyn’s point is a cogent one, but as the history of the English reformation shows, different people had… Read more »

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“I will stay until I want to move parish and go then because I wont sware an oath of allegiance to a woman bishop Strict theological logic doesnt really come into it in my experience” – Perry Butler –

At least, Perry, you are honest about your specific intentions. But what will happen in your present parish situation if God and the Church appoints a new diocesan bishop who happens to be female?. Will you then stay in your post – provided you are not specifically called upon to ‘Obey your Bishop’? This would seem a little dis-ingenuous.

Malcolm+
Guest

@ Simon and Cynthia – both usages are found in Canada. The context will generally indicate which applies.

Perry Butler
Guest
Perry Butler

Dear Fr Ron
Perhaps i should have put the remarks in inverted commas!!!! I was giving an example of the fact strict theological logic doesn’t rule in these matters. I support women bishops and cant understand what the Abps think they are doing putting forward this amendment. I have retired from parish ministry and Im not intending, ecclesiastically, to travel anywhere, having been in the Church of England over 60 yrs!!

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

Dear Perry, please forgive my apparent ‘jumping the gun’ in our little tete-a-tete. It’s just that I feel rather strongly about anyone who might think that the possibility of having to swear allegiance to a woman bishop would dislodge them from an otherwise enjoyable parish post. Agape, Fr. Ron

susan lomas
Guest
susan lomas

The church needs to move with the times. Women Bishops will do an excellent job.