Anglican Mainstream statement on yesterday's vote

Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the failure of the Archbishops’ amendment

July 10th, 2010

The debate in synod is not about gender equality. It is about the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. Most have accepted that there will be women bishops in the Church of England.

The problem the Archbishops were trying to address was trying to address was the problem of monoepiscopacy, the belief that only one bishop can have jurisdiction in one geographical area. Synod had two objectives:

i) To affirm that all bishops would be of equal status and
ii) To enable those who, on grounds of scripture and theology, cannot accept women as bishops, to continue to flourish within the Church of England without diminishing the status of women bishops.

So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place.

Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden

8
Leave a Reply

avatar
8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
E. BatyPantycelynJCFMarshall ScottFather Ron Smith Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Lapinbizarre
Guest
Lapinbizarre

I commented on the “problem of monoepiscopacy” business under your last Anglican Mainstream post. Seems the evangelical ultras and maybe the Jensenites (is there a difference?), have a new toy.

Rebecca
Guest
Rebecca

I don’t recall monoepiscopacy ever being a problem in the history of Christendom until it was important to deny women authority. However, perhaps this is a new ecumenical moment to acknowledge multiple bishops within a single diocese?

chenier1
Guest
chenier1

Rebecca

Well, it seems to have been a pretty live issue a couple of thousand years ago, but after that everyone settled down with it.

And it presumably would have stayed settled until Anglican Mainstream, and others of that ilk, seized upon it as a means of rejecting women priests in general, and women bishops in particular.

Naturally these deeply traditionalist members of the church are perfectly happy to overturn the tradition of a couple of millennia…

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place”.

Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden

Meanwhile, the world waits upon Philip and Chris’s symposium to determine what the oxymoronically named ‘Mainstream’ people might come up with. It must be controversial, otherwise they wouldn’t be bothered.

Marshall Scott
Guest

Having read Dr. Sugden’s article at Anglican Mainstream on “mono-episcopacy,” I’m struck at what appears to be an entirely too convenient mis-remembering of our history. Yes, there have been times in the pre- and Roman Imperial church when there was more than one bishop served in a territory – but one of those bishops was clearly outside the catholic orthodox tradition. Sure, there were Athanasian and Arian bishops at the same time, and Catholic and Nestorian bishops at the same time; but they were hardly “flourishing” in the same church. Of course, that’s really the undercurrent in most of the… Read more »

JCF
Guest
JCF

“The debate in synod is not about gender equality.”

Bollocks.

Pantycelyn
Guest
Pantycelyn

Messrs Giddings and Sugden

It is not possible both to have and not to have women in the episcopate.

One thing or the other.

However, what about this :-

‘… the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. ‘

‘Most have accepted’ that minsiters includng bishops, can be, and are and will be gay.

Get over it — all of it.

E. Baty
Guest

“Mono-episcopacy” – surely we don’t have that in the c of E even now. Service Chaplains for instance are licenced to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops to the forces have ministry over the whole country.

I discovered some years ago that my diocesan didn’t know that. Perhaps the rest of General Synod need a little legal education in the matter.

In any case “Holy Order” isn’t about power or status but about pernission to ministry, a point missed by the critics.