Comments: women bishops: more reports

"...warned of legal battles over churches if traditionalists defect to Rome..."

Don't the buildings of the CofE belong to the State? If not, who does own them?

Posted by BillyD at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 5:52pm BST

the buildings belong to the people of the parish (not the Church-goers) and are looked after and held in trust on their behalf and on behalf of future generations by the vicar, wardens and parochial church councils.

Posted by dodgey_vicar at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 5:59pm BST

Buildings belong to the incumbent of the parish. If he (and in this case it will be) resigns and goes over to Rome then he no longer owns the building and the patron of the living will appoint a new incumbent.
There is no provision anywhere, nor have I heard any plans for such, for there to be any sort of 'split' of the church. Those who cannot remain in the Church of England will leave it, the Church will not divide.

Posted by Wilf at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 6:00pm BST

"There is no provision anywhere, nor have I heard any plans for such, for there to be any sort of 'split' of the church. Those who cannot remain in the Church of England will leave it, the Church will not divide." Wilf

Neither is there a provision in TEC for such. Yet it is happening.

Posted by Davis d'Ambly at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 7:17pm BST

The Bishop of Fulham is due to retire soon so perhaps that is why he feels able to indulge in more and more outrageous comments. Unfortunately he's still on the payroll of the C of E so we're paying for him to act in such an anarchic fashion!

He has become a reason par excellence why there should be no more special interest 'flying bishops'.

Posted by penwatch at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 7:36pm BST

Typically, the leading FiF bishop begs the OOW question instead of dealing with the issues.

As a leader he would be better advised to help craft a solution in light of the fact that his negative views of women and of OOW have lost and/or are losing the day - generationally, if nothing else. He could assist his folks to sort out how to witness and worship in a new world where consevo powers to interfere with qualified women are yet again losing intellectual and ethical traction.

He does not bother, of course.

Instead he layers on odd remarks to connote high difficulties, but again without helpfully dealing with real problems. He simply cannot cope with being a minority traditionalist inside CoE as a western European democracy. Quickly he preens that he is instead among that proud global majority whom God has called to especially set up barriers to women in life.

Preaching his patly airless and sealed off sort of easy traditionalistic repentance is simply more gymnastics. He slips nimbly away from all the emotional, social, intellectual, ethical, citizenship, and yes theological reasons why interfering with women has been called into question in the current or past century. Will continue to be called into question.

(One rather suspects that with these attitudes and hostile postures, the bishop would have been on the forefront of being appointed chaplain to jailed women, say, a century or so back, so that he could show them the errors of their suffragist ways?)

Why do realignment believers now take any instance of generous Anglican leeway offered, then speed to weaponize their views? Is injuring and demeaning the rest of us really so all-important?

Being traditional Anglican believers is now sufficiently, unwisely predicated - a singular belief in a call to interfere with women whom God has indeed called through the rest of us, and in whose call and graces we recognize both ourselves and the power of the Holy Spirit to follow Jesus.

The hard-hearted, blind spin doctor now, not only curses the light as bishop who must above all intefer especially with gifted women whose training and talents would otherwise shine brightly in calling and work, he insists that the rest of us must dwell in nothing but the same cold, hard, dark places in which hindering women is grounded?

Is that call a true calling in God?

Posted by drdanfee at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 7:53pm BST

Wilf, that's been TEC's line, too. What happens if the incumbent tries to go Roman without resigning?

Jon

Posted by Jon at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 7:53pm BST

"He went on to say the Synod is “unfit for purpose” because it does not consider God first and added to applause: “The sooner it is trimmed, culled, sorted or even destroyed, the better.”"

Good heavens. This sounds rather like the RAGE we've been hearing at McCain-Palin rallies (Dress code: shirt, brown) this week: "HOW DARE THEY DISAGREE WITH US?!"

Us/Them: that's the relevant dichotomy, Bishop Broadhurst. NOT "General Synod/God"!

Welcome to the over-ruled minority, Bishop: we LGBTs and women-called-to-orders, who've lived this way for decades, will be happy to tell you what that's like...

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 8:11pm BST

“There are conversations going on already, I know at least 12 parishes and two key dioceses where people have come together and have already sorted out the oversight.”

You know, this seems like a very odd way to drive the True Faithful out of the Church. I'm losing faith in the ability of the Evil Hell Bound Liberals' ability to purify the Church of all that is good and Christian. I mean, we're not going to get rid of the Holy Ones if we coddle them like this.

Posted by Ford Elms at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 8:44pm BST

God's plans for Creation and the occupants of this planet continue to be rolled out. With or without the help of angels, priests, prophets or men.

It's just that it's less embarassing when souls cooperate with God. God Will will be done, on earth as it is done in heaven.

It is very naughty to insist that the status quo continue and claim scriptural precedent to justify current abuses and misdemeanours. Jesus understood when he rebuked the Pharisees Matthew 23:31 "So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets."

The forgotten or unfilled scriptures include
Hosea 2:16 "“In that day,” declares the LORD, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.’"

Isaiah 56:3 "Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, “The LORD will surely exclude me from his people. ”And let not any eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.”"

Matthew 19:14 “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Mark 9:38-41. Jesus told John to not stop anyone who worked through his name (this would include women too) becasue whoever is not against us is for us, nor will they lose their reward.

Luke 6:29-31 "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you." So if women want to wear Bishop vestry, dod not stop them taking on these roles. Allow women to have office as men would have office, do not demand back a position that supposedly belongs only to men.

Actually, I'd like to see all office bearers doing their jobs better - less abuse of children (e.g. Malachi 4:6), more respect for women and other vulnerables (e.g. Zechariah 7:9-10), compassion and hospitality to neighbours (e.g. Micah 4) and reverence for Creation (e.g. Isaiah 11).

Posted by Cheryl Va. at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 10:20pm BST

Can't those who can not accept a woman bishop just see someone else for pastoral care?

Posted by bobinswpa at Saturday, 11 October 2008 at 10:24pm BST

Bishop Broadhurst wrote: "“This is not a vote we’ve lost, this is sin. This is human beings presuming to tell God in Jesus Christ he got it wrong, presuming to tell the majority of Christians we know better.”

I am amazed that this man presumes to put words in the mouth of Jesus that were never uttered.

But, I'm sure that if Broadhurst decided that Jesus should have said it, then that automatically means that the rest of us should give in to his rantings about women bishops.

After all, who is more important, Broadhurst or Jesus?

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 12:48am BST

bobinswpa, not good enough. I think the expectation is purity of line - no hands which have ordained a woman or been ordained by hands which have ordained a woman or supported ordination of women even without actually laying on hands etc. can be permitted to belong to the bishop who has authority over the priest and/or congregation. I have read (apocryphal?) stories that lists are being kept recording who ordained women or were ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop who was ordained or consecrated by a bishop or bishops who at one time ordained or were ordained by someone who ordained a woman, in order to assure that the line of authority is untainted.

(Sigh)

Posted by Rev. Lois Keen at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 1:07am BST

Well, I must say this is a first. I am in partial agreement with the Bishop of Fulham. The General Synod of the Church of England has indeed acted rashly and without due regard to theology. I am speaking, of course, of the ecclesiological innovation inherent in the introduction of Flying Bishops, of which the C of E should repent posthaste. I note Wales has led the way.

Posted by Nom de Plume at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 3:51am BST

“This is not a vote we’ve lost, this is sin. This is human beings presuming to tell God in Jesus Christ he got it wrong, presuming to tell the majority of Christians we know better.”

Who owns the problem? Start with that.

Blaming God and Christ does not help. There is a problem and someone owns it.

How about naming it and addressing it, instead of complaining?

As it is, it's impossible to get anyone even giving their "reasons" for denying the calling of women...

Who owns the problem?

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 6:49am BST

The Catholic Church would never accept a defecting congregation stealing their building. In 1829, the Catholic Church, on the eve of catholic emancipation promised not to make any claims on Church of England propperty.

Folks this is FIF hype....remember Wales.... not one defection since the "flying" bishop was scrapped.

Ladies call their bluff.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 6:59am BST

Oh, Robert, you are a scream!

"The Catholic Church would never accept a defecting congregation stealing their building. In 1829, the Catholic Church, on the eve of catholic emancipation promised not to make any claims on Church of England propperty." - RIW

What are you really trying to say here Robert? That the Roman Catholic Church actually owned any of the Anglican Church Buildings before the Emancipation Act allowed them to the R.C. Church to legally exist as a separate denomination in the United Kingdom?

One would almost imagine that you were really thinking they had a claim to them. What actually happened was that the Act of Emancipation would never have been passed if the Roman Church were likely to press any such claims.

When will you accept the fact that the churches in the UK were built by the local people of the area, and that no foreign church authority had any right to claim them from their rightful heirs.

The situation in the USA and Canada is similarly obvious. Churches built by congregations of the local Church cannot legally be claimed by any hierarchs of a foreign jurisdiction - e.g The Southern Cone Primate.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 11:32am BST

Rev. Lois:

This reminds me, unfortunately, of the "just one drop" rule of being black in the Jim Crow South in the US.

Posted by Pat O'Neill at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 12:15pm BST

And to think the Catholic Revival began as a reaction against Erastianism. How the mighty have fallen...

Posted by Geoff McLarney at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 2:48pm BST

Of course the Catholic Church had a claim on the pre-reformation buildings..but it had to give up any such claim, as an assurance before Catholic emnacipation was granted. So a Forward in Faith parish who went over to Rome could not bring the building with them.

Just look at these magnificent structures and even after the vandalisation of the Reformation, there are clues as to the faith of the builders.

You are leg puller Ron, because you will not acknowledge that for three hundred years , no one ( and still only a party within a wider Church ) interpretated Anglicanism in the way you do...and even you have further rrefined it, to take on a liberal veneer.

Just as the liberals are accused as being innovators today, your party was trying to introduce its Romanising doctrines within nineteenth century Anglicanism..and guess what the evangelicals were taking them to court!

Now, have you heard that somewhere before!

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 4:13pm BST

|Goran - you are wrong. The reasons have been given so very many times but no-one ever answers them. The Bishop of Rochester produced a report- Synod thanked him and did nothing. Now Manchester bemoans the fact that Synod does not actually debate what sort of church it wishes to be- ignoring theology and choosing sociology instead.

Just for you - visit my blog www.sbarnabas.com/blog and click on the link on the right (under articles) for women's ordination.

The reasons are all there. Do get back to me on how I am wrong and you might just assure me of a future in the church of my baptism.

Posted by Fr Ed Tomlinson at Sunday, 12 October 2008 at 8:35pm BST

Thanks Rev Lois. I guess after years of accepting Bob Duncan as my bishop, I've gotten use to accepting people who might not be my first choice. Some of these men should try it. I called it "trying to see Christ in everyone."

I just don't see how these people can accept a woman as queen but not as a bishop. I'm an Anglo-Catholic and I don't mind. I worked with some terrific women priest. I guess I don't see why what you have below your belt should determine what you can and can not do!

Posted by bobinswpa at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 5:30am BST

The bishop of Fulham is illogical. If ordaining women bishops is a sin, then he should just oppose it and not seek any opt outs for him and his friends. By going for the opt outs, he is colluding with the sin of General Synod.

In short, he is long on rhetoric and short on logic (and theology).

I note also that it is bishops who are saying that the bishops should mke all the decisions. This is a common phenomenon - Stephen Sykes came to believe in the supreme authority of the bishop after he became one!

Posted by Frozenchristian at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 11:12am BST

I should point out that my use of the word sin above should be 'sin'.

I do not believe the Synod to be any more (or less) sinful than any other Christian body and seeking to have a prieshood that reflects the image of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures (Gen 1:26-27)cannot be sinful.

What Bible is Broadhurst reading - or can he not see for all the incense?

Posted by Frozenchristian at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 12:53pm BST

"I just don't see how these people can accept a woman as queen but not as a bishop."

Because the Queen doesn't have a sacramental role? I support OOW, and female bishops, but this argument is a non-starter. What I can't understand is how these people can accept a monarch having any control whatsoever in the process by which the Church discerns God's will in the selection of a bishop.

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 2:17pm BST

Fr Ed Tomlinson/erstwhile rugy-playing priest,

Of course, you are absolutely right that Goran is absolutely wrong to claim that 'liberal' arguments on this issue have never been answered. On the other hand, you are absolutely wrong to claim that the arguments on your side have never been answered. The simple point is: neither of you accept the adequacy of the answers given. As you know, I personally accept/and am absolutely committed to/ the rightness of the 'liberal' arguments, and I'm not impressed by the fact that the Pope, the Magisterium etc. disagrees with me. The point (again) is that the premises/bases/relative weights (etc. etc.) of the utterly well-known arguments on both sides do not allow easy formal resolution.

You write: 'Do get back to me on how I am wrong and you might just assure me of a future in the church of my baptism'. I'm very glad that you - unlike many (though by no means all) FIF types - register your love for the C of E. I think that if more of you did so, an acceptable 'alternative provision' might yet be found. I shall continue to defend your rights - in which I devoutly believe - though I'm aware that you - or many of you - don't want defence from such as me.

Your friend,

John Liberalis/Scholasticus/Moles.

Posted by John at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 9:02pm BST

Ford, perhaps you have forgotten that, in the English monarchical tradition, the Sovereign is given a sacred anointing at her/his coronation. This anointing process was not allowed to be televised (as different from the 'anointing' by the Global South Primates of the faux bishops who have found their way into the modern day CANA).

At Queen Elizabeth's Coronation, her entrance into the Abbey was greeted with the Handel Anthem 'Zadok the Priest' - not to ackowledge Her Majesty's sacramental priesthood, but her right to reign, and to be Titular Head of the C.of E.

My point in mentioning the Queen as a paradigm of headship, was to emphasise the fact that, as a woman, the Queen is allowed to exercise that particular quality (headship) in the Church of England, which could logically be seen to have a parallel with the priestly role of women's headship in the ministry of the Church.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 9:21pm BST

But what Broadhurst and Fif were proposing was blackmail pure and simple..give us what we want and we will allow you to have your women bishops...what hypocrisy. If they genuinely believed women bishops was an evil development and offensive to God, they should not strike deals about it.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 9:22pm BST

Rather better than the Bishop of Fulham is Fr. Jonathan Baker's contribution, which explains, for those who might bother to listen, the position of Catholic Anglicans.

Posted by Neil at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 9:38pm BST

The Queen is ordinary to both the Archbishop of Canterbury and York..and their jurisdiction if not their orders comes exclusively from her.

This derives from Henry VIII in January 1535 when he made the Catholic bishops returm their Papal bulls of appointment and re-issued them with his Commission via his Vicar General Thomas Cromwell.

As for Jonathan Baker he deliberately avoids the Protestantism of the early Anglican Fathers...he makes no mention that Hooker deprecated the idea of a sacrificing priesthood or the absolute necessity of episcopacy. he obscures the fact that Laud and many of the seventeenth century divines viewed non Episcopal Continental orders as valid.

Ron the last Monarch to have the title head of the Church was Edward the sixth , and since Elizabeth the First , the title has been Supreme Governor...however her powers amount to the same thing.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Monday, 13 October 2008 at 11:03pm BST

Ed Tomlinson, John,

On a personal note... I lived from age 4 months to late August 1993 in the last Diocese in Sweden which refused to ordain women. The refusnic bishop was a childhood chum of my mother from age 5, and his wife a friend of hers from high school.

I have often asked for the reasons some don't beleieve women are, or can be called to the prieshood, but haven't been told any. If be.

The consequence is, I very much doubt there are any. But I'll have a look at your link.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 6:53am BST

"If they genuinely believed women bishops was an evil development and offensive to God, they should not strike deals about it." - R.I.W.

Robert, where do you stand on this issue. Do you, as a newely-hatched R.C., also believe that 'women bishops was an evil development and offensive to God'? Or are you in open rebellion against the Roman Magisterium here? Tell us!

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 7:16am BST

Fr Edward Tomlinson,

I found 2 basic arguments and a few auxiliaries, but no reasons.

They are:

1) Essentialism (from Ancient Platonisms but much more prominent in Modernity); Being Priest versus doing (no Lutheran would accept that as more than a very partial answer/blindness – Priest is both.

Gender R o l e s & c.

Non-Gospel in-essentials all.

2) “Different but Equal” – well… the American Supreme Court had a few things to say about that… 50 years ago.

Not tenable.

3) Both can be summarised in Complementarism. A Roman idea (19th century Roman family-fascism) adopted by late 20th century Calvinism.

Calling the Loop-sided equal... Again.

It all amounts to traditional-ism: anti Modernism.

Traditionalism is not Tradition. It’s an apparent effort to fixate it.
To make the Movable, Immovable… Un-touchable. Un-reachable… Un-moved…

In short: The Highest Being… not God.

Tradition is about tomorrow – and to reach to morrow, it must pass through me, women and all excluded.

Traditional-ism is about the day before yesterday.

Sorry.

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 8:34am BST

Göran:

Your discussion on traditionalism calls to mind a favourite quote from Jaroslav Pelikan:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead;
traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."

Posted by Nom de Plume at Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 1:52pm BST

Robert, on the subject of the Papal Magisterium: By whom was this held at the time of the Papacy-in-Tandem. the Pope in Avignon, or the Pope in Rome? As far as I know, there have never been two Archbishops of Canterbury at one and the same time - although it seems that Bob Duncan is hopeful of beginning that tradition.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 6:10am BST

Nom de Plume,

And how true it is!

Posted by Göran Koch-Swahne at Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 7:30am BST

Pace many here, I think everybody should be striking deals. Personally, I am perfectly willing to do deals with FiF (which I think profoundly wrong), just as - in practice - they do deals with me (i.e. they don't bar me from communion, even though they know I am outrageously liberal, living 'in sin', etc. etc.). I realise this requires certain compromises from gays and women priests, but these battles are effectively won and will be seen to be so in time. In the meantime, the C of E (and most of Western Anglicanism and Western Catholicism) is falling to bits and we all make things worse by tearing one another to pieces. I am profoundly glad to see an Evangelical friend above bemoaning the dismal lack of perspective on 'his' side, just as I bemoan it on 'mine'. But I don't really accept these labels. Just as 'they are us and we are them' is a great mantra for heteros who have no problems with gays, the same is true as between liberals and Evangelicals and between all these divisions.

Posted by john at Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 4:49pm BST

"the Queen is allowed to exercise that particular quality (headship) in the Church of England, which could logically be seen to have a parallel with the priestly role of women's headship in the ministry of the Church."

Yes. And the Consevo position is an archaic opposition to female headship. My point was that the status of the Queen, while Erastian, does not entail any sacerdotal role. For me, the arguments for and against OOW have been about such a role for women. I don't think we can reduce Holy Order to the level of COE or some such, regardless of the fact that some consevos don't even recognize a sacerdotal role for anyone outside the general "priesthood of the laity", and have placed their oppostion to OOW on this basic rejection of the "equality of man under the Fatherhood of God". And don't go aboard of me for the exclusive language, anybody, I was using an old quote to make a point. As with the Trinity, so with us, we are equal to each other as the hypostases are equal to each other. We need to make this point firmly, since some are attempting to introduce inequality into the traditional understanding of the Trinity to bolster their opposition to female headship. Whether or not they are wrong on the issue of female headship, they cannot be allowed to get away with redefining the Trinity to justify their dislike of women in collars.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 15 October 2008 at 9:40pm 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.