Comments: General Synod - Women bishops debates - Saturday

They re working so hard. And in this heat.

Posted by Pantycelyn at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 4:14pm BST

Having lost by five votes in one house, the Archbishops now would doubtless like to engage in some delay, some horse-trading, and some arm-twisting in order to get what they want.

They'll come up with some face-saving compromise.

Or if they are allowed to, they'll change the rules in the middle of the game.

Posted by Jeremy at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 5:24pm BST

Whatever transpires at this Synod, these figures clearly show that FiF people who want to remain Anglicans should stay and continue their fight, and, equally, that those supporters of women bishops who have not wished hitherto to concede anything more than a 'code of practice' should think again and make a generous gesture.

Posted by john at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 6:03pm BST

the pace of events tends to overtake news coverage, but for those interested in reporting on women bishops in England from a Canadian perspective, go to the link below. For one thing, there is a great photograph of Women bishops--alas no mitres.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/news-items/article/england-general-synod-set-for-lengthy-debate-on-women-bishops-legislation-9288.html

Posted by Rod Gillis at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 6:06pm BST

The fact is: there is no consensus.

There is no particular reason why there should be.

People are different.

What we all, as Christians, have in common is: Christ.

I don't really mind if different people express their faith differently to me.

May God bless them.

As Christians we are all in union with Christ, and in this primary and eternal way, in communion with one another (in all our diversity).

Let us therefore, in response to this amazing grace, love one another, encourage one another, acknowledge one another, and serve one another - and those we meet.

There is no consensus.

But we are one in Christ.

And that is eternally true, in all the varying structures and expressions of 'church'.

I don't seek to impose my own liberal views on the integrity of faith held by someone more 'conservative' or 'traditional'.

I give thanks for the relationship of faith (which may differ from mine in understanding and expression) which is nevertheless a relationship of faith.

May God's grace and love challenge us to gentleness and mercy, and prayers for one another from a contrite heart.

Posted by Susannah Clark at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 6:12pm BST

My guess is, the people supporting the consecration of women as bishops have decided they do not need a compromise to get the majority they need to pass the basic set of recommendations.

Posted by jnwall at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 6:38pm BST

I hope very much they will not try the tactics of "spin" having so roundly heard them condemned yesterday by the Archbishop of York. They lost. End of.

And Synod has not taken well recently to efforts to have its arm twisted.

Posted by Jeremy Pemberton at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 6:52pm BST

Firstly, I must say thank you to all at Thinking Anglicans for the hard work you are putting in to inform us. Perhaps if the ABs had considered talking to people instead of dictating to people this Synod would have been less fraught.

I think it's not unreasonable to consider that the attempt to adjourn the debate until Monday directly after the ABs amendment failed was, as Jeremy puts it, so that the ABs could engage in some delay, some horse-trading, and some arm-twisting in order to get what they want.

As things stand at the moment the Synod has reminded the ABs that 'be you never so high, the law is above you'. We must wait to see what Monday brings, but I'm hoping for some commentary from TA on the state of play so far...


Posted by chenier1 at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 7:01pm BST

Thanks for helpful summary. Could you explain what the bit of business that wasn't done means ie to include Clause 2 in the measure? Not an expert on these things.

Posted by sarah at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 8:52pm BST

Susannah,

That is a great posting and one which - I truly believe - will find a most sympathetic response from those who - from an immediate, superficial, point of view - are at the opposite end of the spectrum.

John.

Posted by john at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 9:09pm BST

"The amendment was defeated, because it was lost in one house (House of Clergy)."

God bless the CofE clergy! [The House wot has women-with-calls: funny how that vote went... ;-/]

ABs C&Y: get with GOD-GIVEN EQUALITY of orders, or get out!

Posted by JCF at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 10:20pm BST

It is worth remembering that the Revision Committee's proposals already require a significant compromise on the part of many of those committed to the opening up of all forms of ministry to women. The archbishops' failed amendment was widely seen as going so far that it would have undermined women bishops and led to a significant change in the understanding of episcopacy.

Posted by Savi H at Saturday, 10 July 2010 at 11:09pm BST

"Perhaps if the ABs had considered talking to people instead of dictating to people this Synod would have been less fraught"

Even better: listening to people.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 1:21am BST

It seems, from the outcome, the the Church of England General Synod cannot be bludgeoned into providing 'alternative arrangements' for minority dissenters, that would compromise the authority and jurisdiction of a female diocesan bishop. This is as it should be. If the Church decides that there is no barrier to ordaining women who are called by God into the ministry of the Church, then no amount of fudging or compromise can, with integrity, be used to thwart that calling - not even for the sake of 'Unity'. For what sort of 'unity' would that exemplify?

If a male priest or bishop feels that women should not be a part of the sacerdotal ministry of the Church in which they currently are serving - they simply should have opted out before this stage.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 3:55am BST

I agree with Susannah. Well, put. We're all different.

Posted by bobinswpa at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 5:18am BST

Yesterday evening, I commented on Susannah's comment. Perhaps I forgot to press some button. Perhaps I'd had too wine (it happens). Anyway, I'd like to reiterate my unequivocal support for those sentiments, which I am ever more convinced -find heart-felt echoes in the bosoms of many, many traditionalists who dearly wish to remain Anglicans. Let's help them.

Posted by john at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 2:21pm BST

Would everyone please remember that the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee IS a compromise already. It is not a single clause measure which most supporters of women bishops would like, including myself. What is on the table, and has years of consultation and work behind it, allows PCCs to issue a Letter of Request to a woman bishops to supply a male priest or bishop. I don't like that, but I am willing to live with it because church life, like most things, involve compromise. Painting the 'pro-party' as uncompromising simply isn't fair or honest.

Posted by Judith Maltby at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 3:22pm BST

Meanwhile in Leicester, a Roman catholic bishop spoke to about 70 Anglicans about the ordinariate!

FIF have well and truly had their bluff called.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 5:37pm BST

It would be useful to have a list of who voted which way on 513a and 514, when the voting roll is published. Please, Simon!

Posted by cryptogram at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 7:24pm BST

Lets see how many actually do "cross the Tiber". Surely at some point members of FIF and others must declare their hand...or the whole Ordinariate thing is going to look pretty daft.

Posted by Perry Butler at Monday, 12 July 2010 at 10:21am 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.