Thinking Anglicans

The Catholics understand women bishops are coming – even though priests and bishops do not square yet with holy tradition. Their opponents ridicule them and clearly are not hot on ecclesiology. The most surprising absolute traitor in this list is Stephen Platten and the Bishop of Derby (Our Lady of Derby pray for us). The others – Portsmouth, Carlisle, Chelmsford, Southwark, Bristol, Liverpool, Gloucester and Birmingham are not so surprising (though their clergy I am sure will be surprised and ought to face them with consequences)

PPS And the most pleasant surprise was to read the voting record of the Bishop of Lincoln who turns out to be a true liberal and not as bigoted as some of his fellow bishops in trying to unchurch his opponents. He is spot on as well in his opposition to the appalling Covenant.

Interesting exercise trying to discern the politics of these votes. The Catholic minded bishops, +London, +Rochester, +Europe, and +Beverley voted as expected, but on the crucial point, amendment 72, which would have allowed some latitude for placating traditionalists, they were let down by figures such as +Chichester (perhaps not surprising given his weakness in failing to censure his arch-Calvinist suffragan +Lewes). Striking also is the way that the ABC voted with the Catholics on almost all amendments, which makes it all the more surprising that many present felt he was unclear in giving guidance. ++York, on the other hand, voted… Read more »

Here’s what puzzles me (well, one of the many things that puzzle me about this), neil says that Platten is an ‘absolute traitor’ for the way he voted. Yet he also says that Saxbee is ‘a true liberal and not as bigoted as some of his fellow bishops in trying to unchurch his opponents’. As far as I can see, Saxbee and Platten voted in exactly the same way on every single point, except the move to adjourn. Am I missing something?

Neil I still object to your language. Go to a real war zone and tell the people there that our bishops are waging a war against their own congregations. Go to a place where people are physically driven out of their homelands and tell them that your bishop is trying to kick you out of your church because he believes you should get used to some people being consecrated. Now, I’m not a particular friend of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, it is because of him that I am not allowed to be as active in my church as… Read more »

neil, thank you for the clarification. I shall now raise my glass tonight to the health of Lincoln, Portsmouth, Chelmsford, Oxford, Gloucester, Wakefield.

John – I neither belong to nor support all the actions of FiF Reform or the Global South, the last two of which clearly wish to unchurch people and would kick them out given the chance. Your analysis fails in that FiF has never had the aim of taking the church over, or refusing to allow those who believe in the ordination of women to prosper. The body arose simply as one which wished for survival with integrity. And the huge majority of trad Catholics have indeed shown tolerance cooperation respect and latitude to the pro-women CofE which has reigned… Read more »

Well, Ian, as Peter has already pointed out Salisbury is on sick leave, Leicester was on House of Lords duty, and Coventry was only consecrated last week, and may well not have completed the formalities to take up his seat in the house.

That leaves Ely, Chester and the bishop of Sodor and Man.

3 unexplained absentees is not so very many.

I was surprised there was no debate on the Tablet leader: ‘If one tries to be prophetic without at the same time being traditional, what weight does it have? On whose behalf is one being prophetic? It is one thing to say that the entire thrust of Christian history leads ultimately to the conclusion that ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy should be open to either sex. It is quite another to say that the thrust of Christian history can be ignored if it does not point that way. Indeed, if such ordination is advocated as an act of justice… Read more »

Is that a better excuse, or a worse excuse than being on duty in the House of Lords?

Motion 76 that inserted the qualification ‘statutory’ for the Code of Practice was carried. No votes are shown. Was this because it was a show of hands. How significant is this qualification?

Here is what the proposer of the motion said about it: (from last week’s report in the Church Times) Jacqueline Humphreys (Bristol) moved an amendment to make the national code of practice statutory. If her amendment was accepted, she said it was still for the Manchester group to decide the content of the code. It would belong to the Synod, but making it statutory could meet everyone’s needs. It would be guaranteed to be in place at all times, it would be robust, “with real teeth”, it could be exactly tailored to meet the fit perfectly, and it was “the… Read more »

Also of note is that the the whole system of provincial episcopal visitors (a.k.a. ‘flying bishops’) was only invented after the passage of the Priests (Ordination of Women) Bill through the synodical process in the early 1990s, and whilst it was awaiting scrutiny by the parliamentary Ecclesiastical Committee and subsequent approval in the Lords and Commons. There was no provision in that Bill itself for codes of practice or extra bishops, or anything of the sort. (The Bill did contain the provision for PCCs to declare that a women priest should not minister in their parish; but nothing about flying… Read more »