Comments: Church Times on the archbishops' amendment

"They are expected to table the amendment at the last possible moment, 5.30 p.m. next Wednesday (30 June), in order to prevent its being further amended."

More stupidity from Lambeth. The less time people have to look over an amendment, the less likely they are to vote for it.

And if Synod thinks the Archbishops are trying to railroad something through, the debate won't be pretty.

Posted by Jeremy at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 11:03am BST

In American usage, to table a motion or amendment is to vote to put it aside, where it remains unless voted off the table for a yes or no vote. I think I've got that right from Roberts Rules.

Obviously it means something different in English usage. Will someone please explain? Thanks. (I may have asked this during some previous meeting and forgotten the answer - if so, I apologize.)

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 12:30pm BST

Two very intriguing articles have appeared in The Church Times:

1. "At the same time, the diocesan bishop, male or female, would remain "legally entitled to exercise any episcopal function in any parish of the diocese". He or she would, however, refrain from doing so in a parish that had made a formal; request for a traditional bishop" - Paul Handley -

2. "What the Archbishops have constructed is another fiction - that all can exist constructively within the one body despite opposing views. But, arguably, this is a fiction that accords more closely with the Anglican project, at least, as we have understood it hitherto - much more Anglican, we would suggest, that wrangles about jurisdiction" - C.T.Leader -

The first paragraph I find extraordinarily odd. It purports to give a legal entitlement to the diocesan bishop to exercise authority in his/her diocese; while yet withholding permission for him/her to exercise authority in a non-compliant parish in her/his diocese. It doesn't make sense!

Secondly, the Leading Article suggests that this might be in sync with what is called 'the Anglican Project' (whatever that might mean). The Leader goes on to say that "this is not a romantic fiction, but if it manages to to re-introduce good will into the debate, it has a chance to succeed."
(does that include a bit of ribald laughter?)

On the balance of sheer logic - this could never be a successful Amendment to the Synod Revision Committee's Motion. However, who knows? It might just match the rest of the legislation which allowed the oddity of 'Flying Bishops' in the first place. My question is - has the rest of the Anglican Communion been consulted in this?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 12:38pm BST

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_(parliamentary_procedure)
In parliamentary procedure, a motion to table may have different and contradictory meanings:

* In the United States, the motion to lay on the table (often simply "table") or the motion to postpone consideration is a proposal to suspend consideration of a pending motion.

* In the United Kingdom and the rest of the English-speaking world, a motion to place upon the table (or motion to place on the table) is a proposal to begin consideration of a proposal.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 1:33pm BST

I wonder whether the Archbishop of Canterbury will attempt to make the Synod vote on his amendment a vote of confidence, if you will.

He might hint that if his amendment is rejected, he will resign. Such a hint would ratchet up the pressure considerably.

Even if he doesn't hint at that, Canterbury and York are going out on a very thin limb.

If Synod cuts it off, what moral standing would they have left? What claim to legitimate leadership?

Posted by Jeremy at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 4:46pm BST

Thanks for clarification on tabling in the rest of the world. And to think we claim to share a common language!

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 6:07pm BST

John Broadhurst, the Bishop of Fulham who is chairman of Forward in Faith, said: “The Archbishops’ amendment is a brave effort to answer
some very serious questions about the dispossession of orthodox Anglicans.

“But I do not quite understand how a traditionalist bishop can work in partnership with a woman bishop while he actually rejects the concept
of her ordination.”

I do not see how people who hold these views with its logical accompanying behaviour can with integrity, remain the stipendiary ministry of the Church of England.

Posted by Pantycelyn at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 11:41pm BST

'He might hint that if his amendment is rejected, he will resign. Such a hint would ratchet up the pressure considerably.'

Yes, it would mean that to vote against the amendment would kill two birds with one stone !

What an incentive.

Posted by Pantycelyn at Friday, 25 June 2010 at 11:43pm BST

'I do not see how people who hold these views with its logical accompanying behaviour can with integrity, remain the stipendiary ministry of the Church of England.'

Because this is of secondary order of importance, after the Creeds! You'd be surprised how many people remain within the CofE and take a stipend, and for example do not agree about abortion. Priests within the CofE are ordained into the Church of God - and belief in God is what is important...not in the CofE.

Posted by Neil at Saturday, 26 June 2010 at 10:23am BST

"Dispossession"? What does Broadhurst imagine he possesses? Or perhaps he is possessed? I suppose to the possessive losing what they hold dear appears a form of exorcism. "And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country."

Posted by Tobias Haller at Saturday, 26 June 2010 at 2:46pm BST

Wasnt quite clear about Neil's post. Surely for many traditionalist catholics in the Church of England faith and order are seen as indivisible.That would seem to be how the Pope sees it too. In any case who decides what is first order/second order etc?? Some evangelicals tell me the gay issue is first order, lay celebration very much a second order... Anglican theology has historically talked of Fundamentals and Non Fundamentals but that became more difficult post "Essays and Reviews"
I think Pantecelyn's point is a cogent one, but as the history of the English reformation shows, different people had different sticking points. We will see ,Im sure,when women bishops are consecrated some traditionalists going and some staying for many varied and often personal reasons and some espousing idiosyncratic positions in between e.g. I will stay until I want to move parish and go then because I wont sware an oath of allegiance to a woman bishop Strict theological logic doesnt really come into it in my experience Some FiF priests will concelebrate with male priests who have laid hands on women, some wont....and so on.The example I liked best was the women ordaining diocesan bishop who was asked to carry the Host ( under a canopy, rose petals et al) at an extreme Roman rite parish, provided he didnt celebrate and carry a host he had confected....these are the sort of tangles which no doubt provides laughter in heaven!

Posted by Perry Butler at Saturday, 26 June 2010 at 3:02pm BST

"I will stay until I want to move parish and go then because I wont sware an oath of allegiance to a woman bishop Strict theological logic doesnt really come into it in my experience" - Perry Butler -

At least, Perry, you are honest about your specific intentions. But what will happen in your present parish situation if God and the Church appoints a new diocesan bishop who happens to be female?. Will you then stay in your post - provided you are not specifically called upon to 'Obey your Bishop'? This would seem a little dis-ingenuous.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Saturday, 26 June 2010 at 10:18pm BST

@ Simon and Cynthia - both usages are found in Canada. The context will generally indicate which applies.

Posted by Malcolm+ at Sunday, 27 June 2010 at 1:26am BST

Dear Fr Ron
Perhaps i should have put the remarks in inverted commas!!!! I was giving an example of the fact strict theological logic doesn't rule in these matters. I support women bishops and cant understand what the Abps think they are doing putting forward this amendment. I have retired from parish ministry and Im not intending, ecclesiastically, to travel anywhere, having been in the Church of England over 60 yrs!!

Posted by Perry Butler at Sunday, 27 June 2010 at 7:57am BST

Dear Perry, please forgive my apparent 'jumping the gun' in our little tete-a-tete. It's just that I feel rather strongly about anyone who might think that the possibility of having to swear allegiance to a woman bishop would dislodge them from an otherwise enjoyable parish post. Agape, Fr. Ron

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 28 June 2010 at 12:34am BST

The church needs to move with the times. Women Bishops will do an excellent job.

Posted by susan lomas at Thursday, 1 July 2010 at 10:25am 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.