Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Reform responds to House of Bishops on changes to draft legislation

Response from Reform to House of Bishops Statement

The Rev’d Rod Thomas, Chairman of Reform, said:

“We are grateful to those in the House of Bishops who have sought to protect the unity of the Church of England by seeking better provision for those Anglicans who cannot accept the oversight of female bishops.

“However we are disappointed that none of the very many compromise options that we and others suggested has been acted upon.

“While we recognise that these small amendments could be helpful, we are dismayed that the assurance for our future ministry within the Church of England will rest on what a Code of Practice says. Not only have the provisions of this Code yet to be agreed, but also, as we all know, Codes of Practice are frequently changed over time. This means that we are being asked to base our futures on a shifting foundation. In particular we are concerned that those considering ordination in the future could be discriminated against because of their views on the difference between men’s and women’s ministries.

“We will now take further counsel as we consider the exact wording of the revisions.”

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 6:38pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

So the amendments have failed to satisfy the Conservative Evangelical wing AND offend those in favour of Women Bishops - bit of an own goal then?

Posted by: Lindsay Southern on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 7:30pm BST

They - THEY - are concerned about discrimination???!!?? They - THEY - who wish to enshrine discrimination against women in the canons of the church???!!??

If they want to go, Let. Them. Go. The Anglican Church may be the roomiest room in all of Western Christendom, but there's no room for prejudice and bigotry and oppression in the Household of God.

If the "issue" were people of color, we'd all be having a different conversation, I trust.

This is not my fight and it is. I'm a woman. I'm an Episcopal Priest. I do not have a vocation to the episcopacy. More importantly, I am baptized. What is done anywhere in the name of Jesus affects me.

I am holding you all fervently in prayer.

Posted by: the Rev'd Dr. Elizabeth Kaeton on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 8:15pm BST

I suspect Forward in Faith will reject it too.

That will make the bishops think that they must have the right formula - as everyone dislikes it - it seems to be Rowan's rule of thumb lately.

Of course the Fulcrum leadership team will agree and say it's wonderful and perfect etc etc etc

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 9:37pm BST

So, WATCH are disappointed, Reform are disappointed, they must have got it just about right then.

Posted by: David Keen on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 at 9:46pm BST

"In particular we are concerned that those considering ordination in the future could be discriminated against because of their views on the difference between men’s and women’s ministries."

- Rod Thomas, Reform -

This remark is a sad commentary on the initial mistake made by the Church of England to allow the creation of 'Alternative Episcopal Oversight' by those strange creatures known as 'Flying Bishops' These ephemeral creatures from outer space should have been swatted or sprayed with insecticide before being allowed to proliferate on Anglican territory. We knew it would all end in tears!

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 1:14am BST

It was a very big mistake - the brain child of John Habgood.


Too sure of himself by half.

Posted by: LaurenceR on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 12:39pm BST

The entire "concept" of "flying bishops" is flawed and shameful. The one thing that should be abolished forever is the "practice" of a "flying bishop". It is amazing that this "concept" was ever approved in the first place. All very strange and antithetical to Christ's teaching that we love one another. Flying bishops seems like a bad dream that never actually happened. Sadly, this is not a dream.

Posted by: Chris Smith on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 2:22pm BST

Most of the last batch (of 'Flying bishops') flew away to Rome having shamefully used and abused the denomination of their ordination.

Posted by: LaurenceR on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 9:40pm BST

I think the offer of flying bishops was well-intentioned but thoroughly stupid. It has given birth to a new heresy - not only in England - that every person is entitled to have a bishop who agrees with them.

I bet Father MacKonochie would have like to have had a bishop who agreed with him.

Posted by: Malcolm French+ on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 at 11:03pm BST

"They - THEY - who wish to enshrine discrimination against women in the canons of the church???!!??"

Isn't this comment a little out of date?

I think you will find that "discrimination against women (as church leaders) has been "enshrined in the canons of the church" since the church first had canons - about 1700 years ago - and was derived from the practices described in canonical New Testament..

Posted by: RevDave on Monday, 28 May 2012 at 9:47pm BST
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.