Tuesday, 17 January 2006

press reports on General Synod

Today’s newspaper had further reports on the matter of women bishops, and also some stories about what else will occur at the February synod meeting.

Earlier women bishops stories are here.

Stephen Bates in the Guardian had Clerics open long path to female Archbishop of Canterbury together with lots of pictures.

Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph said Female Archbishop of Canterbury ‘a possibility’ and also had Church told to apologise for its part in slave trade.

In The Times Ruth Gledhill also had two items: Ordination of women bishops a step closer and Churches facing ‘apocalypse soon’

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 17 January 2006 at 6:19pm GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England

Regarding women Bishops and Priests and the various 'compromises' and delays:

If I were to invite some folks for dinner and, when it came to me serving the food, a couple of the guests said, 'I'm sorry, we don't believe men should be cooking and serving food to guests because it is clear to us that the Bible teaches it's women's work. Can we have one of the ladies of the house serve us please?" I would serve them the food and say, "Here you go, bon appetite!" and carry on serving the other guests. They would be welcome to stay and eat, or not, or leave.

The food has been served. It is the same food as it would be if a woman had served it. The guest is choosing not to eat it because they do not believe it is right. The rest of my guests are enjoying the food and each other's company, because they believe the gender of who served the food is irrelevent.

It would be wrong for a woman to take the food from my hands and serve it to the guests. It would be hurtful to me. It is wrong to cause people hurt. When someone offers you a good thing (or tries to serve you), it is nonsense to say, "I'm sorry, I can't except that from you because you are the wrong sort of person. I demand a different sort of person to give it to me (or serve me).

It's a bit like the sinful woman washing Jesus' feet with her tears and hair. Did he say, "Oi, get away! Let's have someone a bit more appropriate washing me feet. No offence love, but really"? Nope, he did not say that.

Later Jesus washed the disciples' feet.

Who is appropriate to serve or to give? Who dares to reject this gift? How do we accomodate their rejection? Do we accomodate and facilitate such rejection? I think that is not appropriate to do so.

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 at 11:55am GMT

Dear Augustus, Though I am not against women priests or bishops on theological grounds, I would like to point out that Jesus didn't appoint 50% female apostles and tell the men "well you've just got to get use to it" !

If I were in GS I would be wanting to smack the HoB's and Church House's wrists for the CP debacle. The way some Bishops are now reacting suggests that the CP "pastoral statement" was worked up in some smoke filled room and sprung on the HoB too.. But I think that they were also out of order to allow themselves to be rushed into going along with the government changing church law without proper process (maybe the orders aren't even valid!) and allowing a pastoral statement on CPs that is not fully in line with previous Synod, Lambeth, Primates and ACC declarations.

What about respect for the other houses, or synod government ? Very naughty !

Posted by: Dave on Friday, 20 January 2006 at 10:59pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.