Sunday, 11 July 2010

Andrew Brown on yesterday's synod vote

Andrew Brown writes in his blog about The triumph of Anglican women. As the strap line says “The General Synod’s rejection of compromise on women bishops is historic. There’s no return from here.” He concludes with:

Anyway. I have been watching this story, more or less, for nearly 25 years now, and in all that endless wrangling this is only the second time I can remember the synod making an unequivocal choice. From now on, things really will be different.

Posted by Peter Owen on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 3:50pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England | General Synod
Comments

I applaud your optimism Andrew, but some will do their best to overturn that decision, you know. Wait for Monday, Tuesday, and let's see, There's a very long way to go. But I do continue to hope and pray for a real witness to the transforming Love that can put 'impossible' ideas into our minds when we are at the end of our tether. Una

Posted by: Una Kroll on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 4:20pm BST

Yes it is a victory for the women, but will they have the two thirds majority to win the final vote?

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 5:34pm BST

Yes it is a victory for the women, but will they have the two thirds majority to win the final vote?

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 5:34pm BST

"From now on, things really will be different."

Unless, of course, the vote in 2012 falls short of a two-thirds majority in all three houses (the likelihood of which has increased significantly due to yesterday's votes) -- which is why all orthodox Anglo-Catholic and Conservative Evangelical synodsmen ought to vote in favor Monday/Tuesday of the closest motion to a "single-clause measure" on offer, so as to increase the likelihood of such a defeat.

Posted by: William Tighe on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 5:42pm BST

"unequivocal choice". Andrew Brown.

Hardly unequivocal when you count the number of those in favour of the Archbishops' amendments. Brown is rewriting history already!

Posted by: Benedict on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 7:38pm BST

The orthodox are voting in the CoE synod?

Has someone informed the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople of this fact? I can't imagine that he would be pleased.

Posted by: JPM on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 8:29pm BST

The result in 2012 will depend a great deal on the composition of the new Synod elected in October.In five years the balance of forces will have changed...more women clergy, new bishops, a lot of clergy retirements...It will be interesting to see what happens in the Diocesan Synods..my instinct is that these are less polarised than General Synod and support for the measure ( apart from a few dioceses) could be quite strong.

Posted by: Perry Butler on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 9:00pm BST

W. Tighe posted "Unless, of course, the vote in 2012 falls short of a two-thirds majority in all three houses (the likelihood of which has increased significantly due to yesterday's votes) -- which is why all orthodox Anglo-Catholic and Conservative Evangelical synodsmen ought to vote in favor Monday/Tuesday of the closest motion to a "single-clause measure" on offer, so as to increase the likelihood of such a defeat"

Hmmn ... synodsmen? synodsmen? I think you mean members of synod, no? Unless of course Anglo-Catholic means pretty much male Anglo-Catholic, which is what some of us suspect.
So, we have floor strategy for Anglicans offered by a Uniate Catholic, in other words, advice to members of a church that is synodically governed from a member of a church which is not so governed.( I know, I know, there are synods of priests, synods of bishops. This hardly fits the Spirit of the "Decree on Ecumenism", but on the other hand it seems to fit the politics of "ordinariates" quite nicely. Indeed, Anglo-Catholics may wish to study the rather problematic history of Eastern Rite Churches inside areas of Latin or Roman Rite jurisdiction. There may be lessons to be learned along the lines of "look before you leap", or "study the fine print carefully."

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 9:45pm BST

Well, this is the second time synod has voted for a one clause measure. It's pretty clear that that's what the clergy wants. If it fails in 2012 I was wrong.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 10:35pm BST

Both Reform and FIF are already working hard to increase their block vote on synod, particularly in the House of laity.

As a Roman Catholic I would welcome a vote for women bishops, as it will make those Anglo-Catholics with integrity seriously examine the claims of the Catholic and Roman Church.

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 11:21pm BST

I urge caution in our optimism. Nonetheless, Andrew (Brown), what is on the table from the Revison Committee IS a compromise - it is not a single clause measure. It DOES make significant concessions to those opposed. A woman bishop will have to supply a chap to PCCs which request it (that is, him). Despite the rhetoric of many, that shouldn't be lost sight of, even if the Archbishops have lost sight of that – they are only human, after all. I also note the rhetoric of a 'procedural device' of voting by houses. Oh, such a 'device' was used every step of the way in the votes leading up to 1992. I guess the Catholic Group now distances itself from such things ...?

Posted by: Judith Maltby on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 11:56pm BST

"Hmmn ... synodsmen? synodsmen? I think you mean members of synod, no?"

No, I mean "synodsmen," which is the historical term, at least in the Church of Ireland. But perhaps you don't know that -- or perhaps, given your Trotskyite (or should I say, rather, Anabaptist) dismissal of history on another thread, you don't care.

In any case, my advice was meant for Anglo-Catholic and Conservative Evangelical synodsmen, and perhaps it can be filed under the rubric of "any stick to beat to death this dog."

Posted by: William Tighe on Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 11:57pm BST

"In any case, my advice was meant for Anglo-Catholic and Conservative Evangelical synodsmen, and perhaps it can be filed under the rubric of "any stick to beat to death this dog.""

Stay classy, Dr. Tighe.

Posted by: Bill Dilworth on Monday, 12 July 2010 at 11:08am BST

@Andrew Brown: "It's pretty clear that that's what the clergy wants."

And who's Church is it anyway? The clergy's plaything??

It's not what the two Houses of Bishops or Laity want...

The vote of the House of Clergy to reject the Archbishops' proposed amendment is not just a slap in the face for the CofE's two most senior bishops, but the House of Bishops as a body (who voted in favour of it).

It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand what it means to say that 'the Church of England is Synodically Governed and Episcopally led'.

Posted by: JWM on Monday, 12 July 2010 at 12:01pm BST

"Stay classy, Dr. Tighe."

I try, I try -- but I have to accommodate myself to the audience for whom I'm writing.

Posted by: William Tighe on Monday, 12 July 2010 at 12:32pm BST

W Tighe, so far you have referred to me as an Erastian, a Trotskyite, and an Anabaptist, and in an earlier post implied I should have no input on christian doctrine at all, and previous to that linked my passion for human rights to some right wing Christian group in 1930's Germany. So which is it? Pick one and elaborate. I'm not dismissive of historical insight. I'm just dismissing your selective application of the same. Your position on the ordination of Women is grounded in your commitment to the theology and culture of a Uniate Catholic Church . Yours is hardly a disinterested use of history. Judging from your posts, in matters theological and pastoral you are a dilettante. As for the term "synodsmen" its an odd term to use, especially when a more inclusive term like "member of synod", the term used in Canada,for example, is available. But then, "synodsmen" better suits your political assumptions, no? So we get it. If we want our Communion to be more like the Eastern Catholic Rite in its theology and cultural assumptions,we know what to do. The thing is most of us would find that prospect as appealing as the use of the term "synodsmen".

Posted by: Rod Gillis on Monday, 12 July 2010 at 2:32pm BST

When women endanger the veracity of the scripture
as made known by Christ's choice of men as apostles and apostolic tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what can the trendy members of today's Synod gain for the future of the C of E in its suicidal leap in voting for women 'bishops'? Women at the altar make a mockery of priestly holy orders. Women 'bishops'are a further proof that the majority of members of the Synod should seek other employment.This troubling lack of knowledge
& ignorance of the Christian faith could be dismissed as irrelevant, but today we have a world wide attack on Christianity and we simply can not afford to loose so many Christians!

Posted by: Alba Thorning on Monday, 12 July 2010 at 5:02pm BST

If women bishops endanger the veracity of Scripture, Scripture's veracity had a weak case to begin with.

I think I begin to understand fundamentalists and catholics alike - there was conviction, but no direct experience of God as a conversion experience.

Posted by: MarkBrunson on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 at 5:30am BST

"If women bishops endanger the veracity of Scripture, Scripture's veracity had a weak case to begin with."

MarkBrunson, I'm genuinely intrigued: what do you mean by that? Are you saying that if scripture clearly teaches X, and you do not agree with X, then scripture must be false?

"there was conviction, but no direct experience of God as a conversion experience."

But how would you even go about evaluating something like that? You'd admit that sometimes people's convinctions are wrong. How do you know that you are the one who never had a true conversion experience? Is there an objective standard that can be brought into play?

Posted by: JND on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 at 6:02pm BST

Thank God we have been given more time to explain to others the importance of the Sacrament of Communion when the bread and wine becomes The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in sacramental form as directed by Christ to his apostles at The Last Supper. Men and women can receive with equal value the sacred elements consecrated by male priests.

Posted by: Alba Thorning on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 at 9:55pm 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.