Sunday, 19 February 2006

women bishops: further information on TEA

First, what is a possible timetable for the process?

The General Synod papers included a note which was an Annex to GS 1605A. The text of this is given below the fold.

Second, what are the views on TEA of those entirely opposed to women bishops?

FiF reacts to General Synod debate on Guildford Report

Andrew Burnham Bishop of Ebbsfleet wrote a pastoral letter about it in January, and has since prepared a leaflet: Explaining T.E.A. in Parishes.

The February issue of New Directions has several articles on TEA from opponents, including Paul Benfield, Bishop Lindsay Urwin, and John Hunwicke, who apparently objects to being in communion with any [male] bishop who has one or more women priests in his diocese.

The conservative evangelical view is put forward by Bishop Wallace Benn and others in A Way Forward.

Possible Synod timetable (on the assumption that the legislation represented both Article 7 business and Article 8 business)

  1. Drafting Group appointed. Oversees preparation of draft Measure and Canon for introduction to the Synod (a year is likely to elapse between the decision to appoint a legislative drafting group and its report to Synod);
  2. Draft Measure and Canon introduced, given First Consideration by Synod and referred to Revision Committee to consider proposals for amendment (the Revision Committee stage could also be expected to take a year )</em>;
  3. Report from Revision Committee considered by Synod, followed by the Revision Stage in Synod (whether this needed to straddle more than one group of sessions would depend on the nature of the legislation and the number of amendments at this stage);
  4. Reference of draft Measure and Canon, as amended, to diocesan synods under Article 8. The approval of a majority of the synods is required for the legislation to proceed further (A year to 18 months would need to be allowed for this stage to allow dioceses the option for an initial diocesan synod debate, and possible reference to deanery synods before a formal diocesan synod vote. A reference of the legislation to dioceses at this stage in the process is mandatory, whether or not there has been pre-legislative consultation of the dioceses);
  5. Report back to Synod from the Business Committee on the diocesan reference and Final Drafting;
  6. Consideration by the House of Bishops;
  7. Possible references to the Convocations and House of Laity under Article 7 (this would not normally be at the same group of sessions as Final Approval);
  8. Final approval by Synod. A two–thirds majority in each House is required at this point;
  9. Parliamentary scrutiny of Measure, including by the Ecclesiastical Committee (this would probably take some months);
  10. Royal Assent for Measure and Promulging of Canon by Synod.
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 19 February 2006 at 8:26pm GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

The new anti-women bunker appears to be resorting to canon law. This similar article was recently posted: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3595, which includes the following:
4. ...Jesus appointed only chosen men as his apostles, but both women and men as his disciples. In obeying Christ as Lord, the Church has only male bishops as fathers in God.

5. Thus he is well aware that if one takes as of divine authority the choice of men as the apostles and the Tradition of male bishops then one cannot accept a woman as a bishop, however saintly and gifted she is, for it is a betrayal of faith and an act of disobedience to the Lord of the Church to set aside his known will.

By their arguments, Jesus' personal authority and demonstation of appointing female apostles is the only way the anti-women league will tolerate an end to the theological slavery of women. (Mind you, will they recognise Jesus if he treats women decently?)

Thus I pray for Jesus' return and hope that he recalls God's plans for the raising and reconciliation of the feminine consciousness, which is flagged in many passages in the bible including: Hosea 2:14-19, Isaiah 55:3-5, Micah 4:9-10, Isaiah 61:10-11, Zechariah 2:7-13, Zephaniah 3:14-19, Isaiah 52:1-3, Isaiah 54:5-10, Isaiah 62:1-12, Isaiah 66:7-14

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 20 February 2006 at 6:13am GMT

This "apostolic" argument has always seemed weak to me, given that The Twelve serve an obvious eschatological, rather than ecclesiastical, function -- they are to judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and the patriarchal office is relevant in that case. But clearly it is of little or no relevance beyond this peculiar function -- or at least, a case must be made to show why this should be. Clearly there is no need for the successors to the apostles to be like them in _all_ respects: and the notion that sex is important may more reflect the culture of the time than any divine intent. Moreover, the importance of "The Twelve" for the earthly church appears to have evaporated rather quickly after Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out on "menservants and maidservants" alike.

Posted by: Tobias S Haller BSG on Monday, 20 February 2006 at 5:50pm GMT

Heh--- I think this conflict is best summed up (by Prior Aelred, IIRC): Christ's apostles (bishops) should *BE* like Jesus, not *PEE* like Jesus! ;-p

[Why is it that proponents of "gender essentialism", always begin from a position that "it's essential that MALES DECIDE all questions of gender essentialism"? :-/]

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Monday, 20 February 2006 at 7:21pm GMT

Tobias

I agree. The problem is that they are arguing that those who support the ordination of women or women bishops are speaking from human "whim". That their position is "divine", that canon law is "divine" not made by humans, and therefore can not be overturned by humans.

This will be a fundamental plank that they will be training their college students and flocks on why it is ungodly and sinful to tolerate women as active teachers within the church.

If we recognise this strategy, investigate its veracity, and then dispute based on facts and truth then this plank will also be overturned. They are relying on us not doing our homework so that they have an "inviolate" place from which to argue. The only way it will be "inviolate" is we are complacent and allow them sloppy history and precedent to justify perpetuating their prejudices and power mongering.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 20 February 2006 at 8:51pm GMT

Come on Cheryl, surely you can do better? Despite being irritated as well by the 'official' view of the majority of Christendom over this issue - it does you no favours to resort to a glib analysis which would brand our opponents as prejudiced power mongerers. I hope for signs of a more grown up attitude...

Posted by: Neil on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 at 5:41pm GMT

And, surely, Neil, something more grown up than being simply dismissive?

I read the Urwin and Hunwicke articles, and they are not simply dismissive. At the same time, I can't find them persuasive. Hunwicke in particular seems to want to constrain the Spirit. It is not simply that he wants to constrain the Spirit by not imagining that God might call a woman to priesthood, but in imagining that the ministry of a bishop to him (Fr. Hunwicke) is impaired by ecclesiastically consorting with women ordained as priests. This latter is in contrast to the Church's resolution to the Donatist and Novationist controversies (granted that the latter took a century or so).

I do respect Bishop Urwin's observation that TEA is a temporary solution. He is, I believe correct; just as in our American context Designated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) is explicitly understood as a temporary situation. To determine a "permanent" solution is to determine that there is no possibility, or even desireability, of reconciliation. If we are called always to be seeking reconciliation, surely we cannot quickly (and sometimes thoughtlessly, from the rhetoric) dismiss the effort of reconciliation with those with whom we share faith in Christ, even if not how Christ is calling us now.

Certainly, on this side of the water the rhetoric on this issue of reconciliation is quite one sided. Those who proclaim their traditionalism are unwilling to reconcile. They seem to confuse reconciliation with capitulation. Since they don't want to capitulate, neither are they willing to maintain the conversations that might bring reconciliation. There are a few progressives who also take that stand (for example on this site Merseymike), but by the level of volume it is the separating traditionalists who shout louder and in greater numbers. (I am speaking only of the rhetoric; but I believe it we counted the institutional and organizational actions some have taken the proportions would be about the same.)

But, as I have said before, even if they feel thay need to leave me, I trust they will not leave God's care. They will continue to be siblings in Christ, and I will continue to pray for them, even as they despair of me.

Posted by: Marshall on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 at 7:56pm GMT

Your 'Marshall plan' seems more generous spirited in how we approach our opponents...just the right tone thank you.

Posted by: Neil on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 at 11:36pm 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.