Comments: Forward in Faith: the new website

Some of those photos are (unintentionally?) hilarious. That Bishop has a useful right hook!

Posted by ExRevd at Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 3:29pm GMT

I have read the piece "Women as Priest, etc...the Problem"

I have never heard such irrationality in my life.

Jesus did not choose women as senior disciples as women did not have the same rights in his day and culture as men. Women were second last on a man's list of his assets and female children last.

Women's being -including sexuality and intelligence in Jesus' day, and only up to a few years ago, were considered secondary to men.

These two main reasons above are why most of the Church Catholic and Apostolic will not ordain women.

These reasons are immoral.

All ministries arises for Christians from our Baptism into Jesus
i.e. into the full equal grace and love of God. We are not discriminated because of our sexuality from any ministry and mission.

I cannot believe in this second decade of the 21st century I am
reading such poor cultural, sexual and theological ideology.

I accept some people in the Church believe the above old cultural
stuff. I wonder why they cannot accept women as fully equal
sexual beings with men. Certainly it can't be because they hide behind the skirts of "Jesus didn't do it so neither should we".

Posted by The Revd Tom Green at Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 5:57pm GMT

So glad they include a picture of Bishop Lane at the ordination of Bishop North.

Posted by Laurie at Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 10:13pm GMT

You can laugh at them , but as I keep saying they have achieved their objective...a de facto third province and a better settlement than 93.

Posted by robert ian williams at Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 10:14pm GMT

@ exRevd. " That Bishop has a useful right hook!" lol! You know the old saying, by hook or by crook!

Posted by Rod Gillis at Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 10:51pm GMT

"Women Bishops: The provisions"

Well, there aren't scare-quotes (e.g., "Women Bishops", or Women "Bishops"), so I suppose that's a start...

Posted by JCF at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 1:17am GMT

The C of E corporate logo appears on the homepage twice. Is the reader to take from this that FiF is a formally constituted Church of England organisation, or is officially endorsed by the Church?

Maybe it's the other way round...

Posted by Tim M at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 8:30am GMT

Live and let live the two new bishops seem to be happy and ABY so why cant the rest of you just get on with it !!!! MISSION

Posted by M Gray at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 9:50am GMT

Is there a resource there that explains the rationale behind the idea that there exists 'impaired communion' between someone and a bishop if that someone is unable to receive communion from everyone that bishop has ordained on grounds of theological conviction*. I looked in the "Women as Priests...the problem" leaflet but couldn't see anything.

I find this interesting as FiF periodically trots out this argument (e.g. their press release about Philip North) but tend to miss it out when explaining their position. This creates undue confusion about what their position actually is. If they've created a website with a new resources section, but their recent press release can't be justified by their resources, that's not a very satisfactory situation.

* I also want to understand why this situation is different to people who can't receive communion from all the priests owing canonical obedience to a bishop, on grounds of theological conviction, or someone who can't receive communion from everyone ordained by a bishop because some of them have defected to different churches, had their licenses revoked, died or emigrated to inconvenient locations.

Posted by Leon Clarke at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 10:36am GMT

From the F in F website:

“We note, too, that the canonical oath requires clergy to refer to the diocesan bishop as ‘the Lord Bishop’, regardless of his or her sex – a reminder that the role of bishop is inherently masculine (the canonical definition of a diocesan bishop as a ‘Father in God’ remains unamended).”

From the Gospel of Thomas:

“Simon Peter said to them: "Let Mary go away from us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said: "Look, I will draw her in so as to make her male, so that she too may become a living male spirit, similar to you." (But I say to you): "Every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Posted by William Raines at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 11:39am GMT

A minor quibble, but putting "Lord" before a title doesn't necessarily connote the holder being male. Several female government ministers have held the title "Lord Privy Seal", so far the only two holders of the office of "Lord Speaker" (presiding officer of the House of Lords) have been female, there are plenty of female "Lords Lieutenant."

Posted by Philip Hobday at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 4:12pm GMT

It has always seemed to me to be somewhat eccentric to suggest that the male disciples were capable of testifying to the death and subsequent Resurrection of Christ; after all, they ran away, leaving the women to stand by him to the end.

The male disciples were, no doubt, deeply afraid, for good reason, but if we are to affirm that Christ surmounted death we do need compelling evidence that Christ actually died in the first place, and none of his male disciples could provide that evidence since they did not witness it. Equally, Christ chose to greet first his female disciples following his Resurrection, thus providing them with the unbroken chain of knowledge of His life, His death and His return to life.

If I were attracted to the sort of bizarre reasoning provided at the FIF website I could note these undisputed facts to justify the claim that only women are capable of being Christian priests, since Christ chose women to witness his death and Resurrection. I'm not, and I don't, but I continue to regard the FIF position as bizarre...

Posted by Stevie Gamble at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 6:45pm GMT

It's also worth noting in the same vein the HM the Queen is Duke of Lancaster (not Duchess) among other titles.

Posted by Jo at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 7:46pm GMT

"A minor quibble, but putting "Lord" before a title doesn't necessarily connote the holder being male."

Unfortunately I think this odd nomenclature has persisted because people continue to think the holder *should* be male.

The fact that the female lieutenants aren't "Ladies Lieutenant" doesn't mean that the term "lord" is now suddenly gender-neutral.

It means that society is having trouble with the phrase "Lady Lieutenant." And of course society is having this trouble for the usual reasons, especially muddled thinking about women and power.

Libby Lane would strike a real blow for equality if she announced that she is not a Lord Bishop, but a Lady Bishop.

Posted by Jeremy at Friday, 6 February 2015 at 10:49pm GMT

'Libby Lane would strike a real blow for equality if she announced that she is not a Lord Bishop, but a Lady Bishop.'

She would strike an even bigger blow for equality if she announced that she is neither.

Posted by peter kettle at Saturday, 7 February 2015 at 10:53am GMT

The solution is the phrase 'Comrade Bishop', obviously.

Posted by DBD at Saturday, 7 February 2015 at 10:50pm GMT

I hear you, Peter. I'm focusing on gender equality within the current House of Lords setup. But your point is very well taken.

Posted by Jeremy at Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 2:38am GMT

Strictly, I suppose, she is neither a Lady Bishop nor a Lord Bishop as the title (whichever) relates to membership in the House of Lords, not to a level of ordination.

When all bishops were Lords, the title naturally became used for them all. WHen the number of bishops in the Lords was reduced, custom meant that even those diocesans who were not (yet) Lords Bishop were frequently referred to in this way. For the longest time in Canada (and I dare say elsewhere) bishops continued to be addressed as Lord Bishop but I'm happy to say the custom has nearly died out just about everywhere.

But no suffragan was ever a member of the Lords. It's undoubtedly too late to expect usage to return to reality. But as an alternative, perhaps people could discuss something that matters.

Posted by John Holding at Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 3:10am GMT

Secular life tells us plainly that women are not excluded from membership of the House of Lords.

We used to hear only of 'Lord Mayor' and 'Lady Mayoress'. The times - they are a'changing!

Even that old misogynist Saint Paul has been known to say that "In Christ, there is neither male nor female". True, or false?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 10:09am GMT

"Strictly, I suppose, she is neither a Lady Bishop nor a Lord Bishop as the title (whichever) relates to membership in the House of Lords, not to a level of ordination."

Maybe, maybe not!

http://www.debretts.com/forms-address/professions/religion/church-england/bishops-diocesan-and-suffragan-church-england-and

Posted by Labarum at Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 7:55pm GMT

When I moved to this diocese, my licence as a Reader was issued by George Cassidy who, then being one of the Lords Spiritual, was styled in the superscription as "Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham". Some years later, on moving to a different parish, Bishop George having retired, my new licence was issued by Paul Butler, not then a member of the House of Lords, and is superscribed "Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham". I have always assumed that the diocesan legal office knew what they were doing when they prepared the licences.

Posted by RPNewark at Sunday, 8 February 2015 at 9:32pm GMT

I'm sorry, but I find the substance of these two paragraphs of the Bishops' Report (quoted on FiF's new web-site) to be incongruous - if not mutually inrreconcilable:

(1)"Now that legislation has been passed to enable women to become bishops the Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender, and holds that those whom it has duly ordained and appointed to office are the true and lawful holders of the office which they occupy and thus deserve due respect and canonical obedience;2  Anyone who ministers within the Church of England must be prepared to acknowledge that the Church of England has reached a clear decision on the matter" and

(2) "Since those within the Church of England who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to
enabling them to flourish within its life and structures."

My question is; How possibly can the people of the 2nd category be considered to be "within the spectrum of (the) teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion?; when they will not acknowledge what has become the revised 'teaching and tradition' of the Church to which they cling - despite their obvious refusal to accept its canonical acceptance of women clergy?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 4:45am GMT

Just as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons are addressed in various degrees as "Honourable" so too all Members of the House of Lords, irrespective of gender, are addressed as "My Noble Lord".

Posted by Father David at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 7:34am GMT

I thought a couple of hundred years ago or so, Irish suffragan bishops sat in the HofL ..........

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 8:30am GMT

'... all Members of the House of Lords, irrespective of gender, are addressed as "My Noble Lord".'

Are you sure, Father David?

Whenever I have watched the proceedings on BBC Parliament, male members have (almost always) been addressed as "the noble lord, Lord XXX" while female members have (almost always) been addressed as "the noble baroness, Lady XXX."

So always "noble" I would agree with; always "lord", I don't think so.

The '(almost always)' above refers to those peers whose titles are other than baron or baroness.

Posted by RPNewark at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 10:06am GMT

Ron Smith:

My guess of the FiF position is that they are required to acknowledge that 98% of the church disagrees with them, but they aren't required to accept that the majority might be right or participate in structures that force them to integrate with the majority. And that the spectrum of teaching and tradition needs to expand to encompass their view.

I'm sure any lawyer would tell you this is a reasonable reading of the principles.

There's a certain fudge there surrounding canonical obedience, but resolution C parishes have been living with that particular fudge for the last 2 decades. (They've been behaving as if their PEV is their bishop, when the act of Synod suggests the PEV is the bloke their bishop delegates to pop in to do their confirmations)

Posted by Leon Clarke at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 10:33am GMT

I bow to your superior knowledge RPNewark and stand corrected. I try to catch PMQs each Wednesday but rarely see proceedings from the other place. So, how are the Lords Spiritual addressed then?

Posted by Father David at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 3:58pm GMT

Q: "how are the Lords Spiritual addressed [in the HoL] then?"

A: "the noble prelate"

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 5:31pm GMT

"Irish suffragan bishops" -- have there ever been any Irish suffragan bishops, Martin? I thought the CofI's episcopal problem was always that there were too many of them. The supression of some of them and the reduction of two of the four archbishoprics to bishoprics in 1833 was precisely what led to Keble's Assize Sermon on national apostasy, regarded by Newman as the start of the Oxford Movement.

But Irish (diocesan) bishops and archbishops sat in the Westminster HoL from the Union on 1 January 1801 until disestablishment in 1871. Before the Union, these noble prelates had sat in the Dublin HoL.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 5:36pm GMT

Father David; Section 4.39 of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords (2000 edition, and one of my most treasured possessions....)gives the following:

Archbishop of the Church of England: "the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of..."

Bishop of the Church of England: "the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of..."

Posted by peter kettle at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 5:41pm GMT

Sorry, Simon, but they are not addressed as "the noble prelate"; only Lords Temporal are "noble". (It should not be inferred thereby that the Lords Spiritual are ignoble.

The archbishops are addressed as "the Most Reverend Primate" and bishops as "the Right Reverend Prelate", in both cases with the optional addition of "the (arch)bishop) of NNN". So no change at all in the form of address will be required if the individual in question should happen to be female.

Posted by RPNewark at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 8:15pm GMT

I believe there have been such animals, Simon.
Though the suffragans I am referring to are Meath etc and during the time of the four primates I think they were called his suffragans and sat in London two at a time on a rotation basis. I shall look to see if there's anything online, I have long ago got rid of that part of my bookshelves!

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 8:33pm GMT

Re "Irish suffragans".

From the Union with Ireland Act 1800:
"That it be the fourth Article of Union, that four Lords Spiritual of Ireland by Rotation of Sessions, and twenty-eight Lords Temporal of Ireland, elected for Life by the Peers of Ireland, shall be the Number to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom;"

If they are called "suffragans" this is a different meaning of the word from the one commonly used in Anglicanism. In this sense, a diocesan bishop is a "suffragan" of the metropolitan or archbishop. Whereas, since the passing of the Suffragan Bishops Act 1534, we have tended to use the word to mean a bishop with a titular see who is subordinate to the diocesan bishop.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 10:00pm GMT

Re "noble prelate" -- yes you are right Peter and RP. Though if you google "noble prelate" you will find plenty of parliamentary examples.

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 10:03pm GMT

This is a bit like the Crockford's page on how, or how not, to address the clergy. A Big No No is The Reverend Smith, which is a bit like addressing the late Sir Robin Day as Sir Day. It should always be The Reverend John Smith or The Reverend Mr. Smith.

Posted by Father David at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 10:43pm GMT

Yes, I see they are of a different kind but they are there, sitting as suffragans, the Constitutional Documents of the United Kingdom 1782-1835 edited by H. T. Dickinson says its true, so I will have it ........ sort of ...........
Looking at the Lords petition to resolve the enjoyment.of privileges by those Irish bishops so newly united, I see that English bishops other than primates are called suffragans too.
I didn't know that Meath and Kildare had the same preeminence in Ireland that London,Winchester and Durham enjoyed in England.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 9 February 2015 at 10:49pm GMT

For what it's worth I referred to the bishop who confirmed me in TEC as my lady bishop. She did not correct me, niether did my priest.

Posted by Whit Johnstone at Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 3:50am GMT

Martin, and alone amongst the *bishops* of the Anglican churches in these isles, the Bishop of Meath and Kildare is styled the *Most* Reverend. The current incumbent is the Most Reverend (Mrs) Pat Storey - the first female bishop in the four "home" Anglican churches.

Posted by RPNewark at Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 9:14am GMT

How bishops are referred to in the House of Lords is a bit off point, because one of the tenets of parliamentary procedure is that Members should not address one another directly. The result is rather elaborate courtesies and circumlocutions.

As a result, what Members say about each other, and how they refer to each other, in debate offers little guidance to the rest of us when we address or speak of bishops in more everyday circumstances.

Further up the thread I thought it was established that bishops are sometimes addressed or spoken of using the word "lord." If that is so, then I can see no reason why, with the advent of women bishops, the word "lady" cannot be swapped in.

Posted by Jeremy at Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 1:12pm 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.