Comments: WATCH Statement on the consecration arrangements for the Bishop of Burnley

Instead of asking questions, why won't WATCH just say what it thinks in its next statement? Does WATCH believe the rules - including the Five Principles - have been wrongly applied, or are the rules themselves wrong?

The word "taint" is in the atmosphere largely because of a disturbing emergence of liberal intolerance by some supporters of gender inclusion, with the debate at times becoming indignant and personal towards the bishop-elect. I have seen no instance of WATCH acting to diffuse the situation and ensure the discussion remains civil and charitable.

I fully support women in the episcopate, but this isn't about me: the Archbishop of York seems to be satisfied he has interpreted the regulations correctly. By Monday afternoon, therefore, we should have a new canonically ordained and consecrated bishop. The HoB Declaration and Five Principles came about not just after all sides came round the table to talk, but was also endorsed with the enthusiastic support of WATCH members and their allies.

Posted by Tim M at Friday, 30 January 2015 at 5:24pm GMT

re Tim M's contribution: Interesting is this week's 'Tablet' Editorial, which questions the R.C. non-attendance at Bishop Libby's episcopal ordination, virtually calling their absence regrettable, and hopefully not a sign of 'things to come' in terms of the quest for Christian Unity.

It will be interesting to see if there is any R.C. representation at Fr. North's 'Do'.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 30 January 2015 at 11:39pm GMT

There is no surer way to create a church-within-a-church than to decide that some bishops can lay hands on some ordinands, and other bishops cannot.

If an ordinand, or his or her faction, feels that consecration by either Archbishop is inappropriate, then perhaps the ordinand should not be ordained in the CofE.

If this abstention from laying on hands was truly and entirely the Archbishop's idea, then I would strongly suggest that the next General Synod restrict the ability of the Archbishops to abstain from consecrating due to the theology of the ordinand.

Is the Church of England one church? Or not?

Posted by Jeremy at Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 2:22am GMT

One thing the T A Blog proves above all else is that it buries the untruth that to be a member of the Church of England you don't have to believe in anything very much.
The commentators on this blog shew time and time again that they do indeed passionately believe. One only has to look at the passionate opposing responses to the consecrations of Bishop Libby and Father Philip to note the strength of passion, feeling and belief on both sides of the discussion. If only this could be done with a measure of "gracious restraint" and Christian compassion without descending into personal abuse, then the Blog would be immeasurably improved for the good.

Posted by Father David at Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 10:56am GMT

I like the WATCH statement. We've spent a few weeks now criticising what we THINK is behind the statement, but all our energy could have been wasted if that isn't what they were thinking at all. It's valid to say "I have the impression that this is taint, I know you say it isn't, so can you please explain what you did mean".
We need to get away from talking at each other and talking properly with each other - and that ought to include the bishops and the archbishops. The Western world has moved on and this lack of transparency and accountability is a huge turn off for so many.

Posted by Erika Baker at Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 11:48am GMT

I certainly never supported the House of Bishops Statement nor the five principles. Now they are being worked out we can see how harmful they are. Those in the Church might tie themselves into knots in this way but those outside are just more horrified by the Church of England. I have daughters and grand daughters whom I long to return to faith and worship but this just drives them fur her away

Posted by Jean Mayland (Revd) at Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 11:55am GMT

Jean Mayland voices the fears of many, that, as in the past, the words we hoped would hold a single church together will in fact be interpreted in ways which pull us apart. There were people who didn't vote for this legislation and the five principles and who don't see themselves in it. If it is their influence which is trying to grow practices in the church inimical to the principles, then in the end we all have a problem - those of us who own the principles need to be part of shaping the practices. I find the principles difficult personally, but having supported the settlement I know I have to give them a go and not ditch them at the first hurdle.

If "gracious restraint" becomes just another way of "being nice to each other and not engaging", the settlement will fold in another way. Anyone who has studied this at all knows that it will be hard, and the principles are about remaining in relationship with each other. To pick up an idea in Father David's post, they are essentially about being passionately faithful without losing sight of each other, and each other's faithfulness.

The statement rightly says we are in a new era. The five principles mean that we have work to do to shape our common life. It is work we have to do together.

I am sad that the first outing of "gracious restraint" seems to involve some form of mandated corporate discipline. To me the whole idea only works when it is a costly gift rather than a compelled but reluctant act.

The Church of England can do so much better than this, but that is for the church to work through together. It is right to pray for the individuals involved, for they will bear the mark of history as well as the burden of office.

Posted by Mark Bennet at Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 10:23pm GMT

And yet the bishop of Chichester, was ordained bishop, by archbishop Sentamu !

Posted by Laurie at Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 11:19pm GMT

Father Ron intimates that there was no official Roman Catholic delegation or representation at last Monday's consecration, was there any official Orthodox representation in the Minster, or were the Great Churches of East and West significant by their absence?

Posted by Father David at Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 6:06am GMT

I've copied below an article from New Directions by Fr Philip. Take the time to read it, then say why you disagree with him - apart from the worry of 'taint'. This is what we in the Diocese of Blackburn are thankfully getting - Positive Mission.

ED: as the article is far too long for a comment, I have obtained the permission of Forward in Faith to reproduce the full text as a separate TA article, which I have just now published. Scroll up....

Posted by Henry Dee at Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 2:46pm GMT

I can see a private member's motion coming for rescinding the Guiding Principles, not that it would get through the House of Bishops. It might however lead to an honest debate.

Posted by Anthony Archer at Sunday, 1 February 2015 at 11:14pm GMT

I can see questions being asked in Parliament about why the church established by law is creating a misogynistic church within a church.

This would be silly -- a hand-scrawled sign saying "no girlz allowed" -- if it were not so theologically pretentious and abusive.

Posted by Jeremy at Monday, 2 February 2015 at 3:51am GMT

"And yet the bishop of Chichester, was ordained bishop, by archbishop Sentamu" @ Laurie. Precisely. So was +Beverley. Which is why this is NOT - and never has been - about taint.

Posted by Simon R at Monday, 2 February 2015 at 10:08am GMT

I wish Philip North well in his ministry but the theological questions raised by the manner of his ordination are important. If the non-laying on of hands signals 'impaired communion', what does it mean to have a suffragan not in full communion with his diocesan bishop, archbishop and majority of clergy and parishioners he supposedly serves? As far as I am aware, this is unprecedented.

For instance, suppose you are a teenager about to be confirmed by, and take your first communion from, a bishop who appears to have indicated publicly that he is not in full communion with your vicar and the rest of your congregation, including your parents. Are you in communion with him or them? Does this depend on your attitude to women clergy and, if you regard their ministry as valid - the opinion of the C of E and the vast majority of its members - what does it mean to be confirmed by someone who does not believe you can be in full sacramental fellowship with him?

Posted by Savi Hensman at Monday, 2 February 2015 at 7:27pm GMT

You make a good point, Savi, but I am not sure it is entirely unprecedented. There are other non-ordaining bishops who are suffragan to ordaining diocesans, e.g. +Tony Robinson (+Pontefract/soon to be +Wakefield), one of yesterday's co-consecrators. Is their situation any different to that of +Burnley? Conversely, the ordaining +Lewes is suffragan to yesterday's chief consecrator +Chichester.
And, although the three PEVs are arguably a special case, they are technically suffragan to their respective Provincials, both of whom ordain women.

Posted by Malcolm Dixon at Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 5:05pm GMT

In the past, Malcolm, I believe bishops who do not ordain women have been willing to be consecrated by bishops who do.

Posted by Savi Hensman at Tuesday, 3 February 2015 at 5:42pm GMT

Yes indeed, Savi, non-ordaining bishops have been willing to be consecrated by ordaining bishops. And I like to believe (being as positive as possible in a very unsatisfactory and worrying situation) that Philip North would have been willing to be consecrated by ++Sentamu. But the arrangements were imposed on him (and everybody else) by an authoritarian ABY, using the power given to him and overriding all objections. And the unfortunate Fr North, now twice wronged by the same person, felt obliged to go along with them out of loyalty to his new Metropolitan. That's my take on it, anyway!

Posted by Malcolm Dixon at Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 2:48pm GMT

"[A]n authoritarian ABY, using the power given to him and overriding all objections."

I can't speak to Bishop North's willingness. feeling of obligation, or loyalty. But it does appear that this strange ordination came about in the way it did because Archbishop Sentamu thought it right.

So I agree with you about where responsibility and accountability should lie. And I agree with you about "the power given to him."

Let us hope for a question or two in Parliament, and the implied threat of legislation if either Metropolitan uses his power again in such a foolish way.

Posted by Jeremy at Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 2:49am GMT
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.