Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Bishop of Ebbsfleet moves to Fulham
The Right Reverend Jonathan Baker the current Bishop of Ebbsfleet (one of the two provincial episcopal visitors in the Canterbury province) is to become the Bishop of Fulham, a suffragan see in the Diocese of London, and which has customarily had a similar role to that of a PEV.
10 Downing Street: Suffragan See of Fulham
Diocese of London: New Bishop of Fulham announced
Lambeth Palace has published: Archbishop welcomes appointment of new Bishop of Fulham
…A process of consultation to identify Bishop Baker’s successor as Bishop of Ebbsfleet will begin within the next few weeks, which will be completed by the next Archbishop.
Forward in Faith has this announcement.
Earlier this month it was announced that the new Bishop of Whitby (a suffragan see in the Diocese of York, which also in recent years has been held by someone opposed to the ordination of women) will be The Reverend Philip North.
10 Downing Street: Suffragan See of Whitby
Diocese of York: New Bishop of Whitby
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on
Wednesday, 31 October 2012 at 9:24am GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Church of England
I think this is all good news. It attests the continuing commitment of high-class FiF people to their church. It also attests the continuing commitment of the church to such people.
I know only good things about Fr Philip North from people whose opinions I respect - and not, for the most part, people sympathetic to the aims of Forward in Faith. He seems to be exactly the kind of figure who can point a way forward for principled Catholic traditionalists in the Church of England. I wish him every success in Whitby.
Two excellent appointments. Let us hope and pray that whoever is appointed as the fifth Bishop of Ebbsfleet is equally young and vigorous enough to offer many, many future years of service to the Church of England.
Excellent news for people determined to remain as catholics in the CofE, come what may.
Fr Philip North is theologically opposed to the ordination of women but that does not mean that he shuns them. I have found him to be endlessly supportive to me, going out of his way to visit me when I was seriously ill recently.
So now that there is a vacancy in the See of Ebbsfleet, might it be too much to wonder whether it might be filled by an evangelical, rather than an Anglo-Catholic. opponent of the ordination of women?
Of course many, perhaps most, who find difficulty with Anglicans ordaining women put striving towards Christian unity ahead of equal rights for women. No one doubts that women are as gifted pastorally, academically and spiritually as any men. If it were not that the RC and Orthodox are unready for this development there would be no problem. Each time we edge nearer to our ecumenical goal the Anglicans introduce something that moves the goal-line further away. It is God's church and in time it will achieve unity; meanwhile it is important that we bear with one another with love, good humour and patience!
Well, Jonathan Baker clearly doesn't think so, see his comment to Forward in Faith now added as a link.
These are good appointments and hardly a surprise. The fact remains that the whole tenor of the Women Bishops' Measure demands that this constituency continues to have 'their' men ordained as bishops. And it hardly makes London a ghetto. The diocese is stuffed with bishops, and two in particular are completely bought in to women's ministry in all its orders, +Willesden and +Kensington. Whether that means we will see another Bishop of Lewes-type appointment in the Benn mould remains to be seen. Pilling made a particular point on this, but don't the ConEvos just need a man (any man?)!
"If it were not that the RC and Orthodox are unready for this development there would be no problem" Surely John the "problem" remains that Holy Scripture does not sanction "this development". Our brothers and sisters in the Latin and Orthodox churches take Holy Scripture seriously which is precisely why they are unready for this development.
When we have a new 'Flying Bishop' appointed in the North and placed in the Archbishop's staff I really do not see the need to have another Bishop opposed to women priests in Whitby. This is the fourth anti women bishop apointed to that suffragan see and it is very wrong that the women priests there have to suffer this once again. I understand also that there was no consultation with the people who live there before this appointmment was made.
Jean Mayland's point about consultation before the appointment of the new Bishop of Whitby is flawed in that the appointment is in the gift of the Archbishop. Surely he knows best what is needed for the Archdiocese and does not require instruction.
After a page of quite accomodating and inspiring comments from others, it's hardly inspiring to hear that your traditionalist brethren have 'to be suffered.'
Jean - We can't start basing who should receive preferment on whether they believe in women's ministry or not rather it should be whether they'll be able to do the job correctly and effectively.
Rt Revd Martin Warner done a excellent job during his time in Whitby and I know that many female clergy will speak very highly of him. So that same faith in +Martin Chichester should be placed in Fr North.
He will be willing to work with female clergy and they will not suffer. Like many people have gone on about "Why can't they just trust women bishops to provide a suitable bishop for those opposed?", so why not trust that a suffragan bishop who is opposed will be ready to support women clergy in their area.
They would have done consultation even if it weren't public before such an appointment is made - this is an essential part of the Suffragan appointment process. So if +John Sentamu and his team felt that Fr Philip North was a suitable candidate (Besides his name was circulating for some time now)they have every right to appoint him.
The Act of Synod also states "There will be no discrimination against candidates either for ordination or for appointment to senior office in the Church of England on the grounds of their views about the ordination of women to the priesthood"
Fr Webster caters for those opposed while +Whitby will cater for this episcopal see which has no relevance to his personal conviction.
We have had the Act of Synod for 20 years now and we fully understand it, so if they feel like appointing men who are opposed to Senior Offices they have every right too
How many non-ordaining bishops does either the Diocese of London or the Province of Canterbury need? The Bishop of Fulham has operated as a type of PEV in the past, so let it be in the future. Therefore let Ebbsfleet lapse.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the Archbishop of York consulted all those who needed to be consulted in advance of the appointment of the excellent Fr North to the See of Whitby. And that would explain why Jean Mayland knew nothing about it.
While I am all in favour of these particular developments (and indeed others like them), I do also think that Evangelicals need to be given more of a look in. Fair's fair.
Still won't alter their NO vote on the 2oth.
While I accept and respect that those from both integrities regarding the ordination of women may be called to consecration, I understand what Jean is saying. It does seem that some in ordained ministry have to learn to respect more than others, and I feel it unfortunate that the ordained women of a diocese have consecutive bishops with whom they unable to experience the joy and affirmation of concelebration, for example. It is not just about being cared for. Perhaps if this coexistence is really to work a person such as Philip North could be appointed to a diocese where the ordained of either gender have not had to live with the reality of a bishop who does not accept that those women are priests. Some of us have lived in this situation for a long while, when none of our bishops will ordain women.
In one of her comments, Jean Mayland, almost imperceptibly, used the expression 'anti women bishop'. She needs to be corrected. The implication of what she says is that traditionalists like Fr North are anti women. That is a gross misrepresentation of a theological position, which position the forthcoming legislation seeks to honour, albeit insufficiently. Ms Mayland needs to think through very carefully her articulation of the arguments she chooses to use.
Fr David rightly points out that our brethren in the Latin and Orthodox churches presently feel that the ordination of women is not sanctioned by Holy Scripture. But in John 16 v 13 Our Lord is reported as saying that when the Spirit of Truth comes he will guide us into all the truth. Surely we have to be attentive and cautiously open to the possibilty of our understanding of God's will for the Church's teaching, practice and order developing. There is nothing in the Bible about the Assumption, for instance. Those who believe orders belong to the Universal Church feel that for Anglicans to have gone it alone was presumptuous. It would have been better to have expressed an opinion and awaited the more general agreement that might have signified the direction in which the Spirit is guiding us.
'...another Bishop of Lewes-type appointment in the Benn mould...' God preserve us from another one.
I am appalled that, the last lot of anti-women bishops having poped, a new batch are being rushed out ! Should constituencies who lose their bishops like this be given a fresh 'supply' ?
I suppose I should be thankful that the current Ebbsfleet isn't going over to Rome .. ?
The Church of England really deserves to fall apart as it - more and more irrelevant and hypocritical.
"Each time we edge nearer to our ecumenical goal the Anglicans introduce something that moves the goal-line further away. It is God's church and in time it will achieve unity; meanwhile it is important that we bear with one another with love, good humour and patience!"
I totally agree with this statement above, although I do doubt that we will ever fulfill that ecumenical goal with the developments inside the CofE (Although stranger things have happened) but we can still built toward ecumenical relations and make that stronger.
We should bear with one another in love, humour and patience but most importantly "Respect". I feel that as long as the Archbishops see fit, they should appoint suffragans to +Ebbsfleet, +Beverley and +Richborough regardless of whether the Act of Synod is rescinded.
The church should also appoint "traditionalist clergy" to senior appointments based on what they can offer the church and they should not be barred based on theological convictions. This is why I am pleased with recent appointments like Fr North CMP and +Martin Chichester
is that a serious comment? so, if all your "constituency"'s bishops disappeared tomorrow you wouldn't want them replaced so that your views had any kind of representation in the house of bishops?
And yes, there is the case of female clergy, who currently have no "representation" in the HoB (apart from males who support them), but legislation is in hand to address this. Replacing one injustice with another, even a lesser one, is surely not what we're about here? Or is hypocracy a one way street?
primrose I am indeed! Are you? To lose one bishop would be unfortunate, but having all the PEVs bar one pope, plus Fulham, seems careless or wilful to some of us. Who could doubt the importance of being earnest !
No more anti OW bishops please