Thinking Anglicans

David Stancliffe writes about women bishops

This article was first published in The Tablet, the Catholic weekly. www.thetablet.co.uk
It is reproduced here with the editor’s permission.

David Stancliffe Not what you do, but how you do it.

An Anglican bishop who supports women’s ministry argues that the disagreement between Rome and the Church of England on the matter is connected with their different ways of thinking rather than the substance of what they believe.

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
19 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
JCFLaurence RobertsEdward PrebbleJoeRod Gillis Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Nom de Plume
Guest
Nom de Plume

Well said! And precisely the same comments will lead us to reject the Covenant, as well.

Bill Dilworth
Guest

“The priesthood is sign and sacrament of the new creation and not only may but must include both men and women if it is to be truly representative of the whole Christ, not just the Jesus of the Last Supper.”

Silly me! Here I was thinking that the Jesus of the Last Supper (and the Garden and the Cross and the Tomb and the Resurrection) *was* “the whole Christ.” I’m all for the ordination of women, but his sort of woo-woo leaves me cold.

I

JCF
Guest
JCF

I’ve never even HEARD of a “hawser”, so if for nothing more than introducing me to a new word&thing, I thank Bishop Stancliffe! Quoting (RC) Fr Radcliffe: “an ordination that is productive of division would be a contradiction in terms”. Well, it’s a contradiction of catholic&orthodox theology. It’s consistent w/ the heresy of Donatism though. Q.E.D. But turning to Fr Radcliffe’s (provocative? To his bishop, one fears?) words again: “Many Catholics believe that women should not be excluded from ordination, but this will only be possible with the consensus of the communion of the Church.” To this, Bp Stancliffe inquires… Read more »

peterpi
Guest
peterpi

It may be, that the exclusively XY priesthood IS God’s Will . . . IN that part of the Church centered on the Bishop of Rome. While at the SAME time, it is God’s Will that women be ordained to ALL orders, in the part of the Church focused on Canterbury. — JCF on Sunday, 22 August 2010 at 10:57pm BST Or, how I see it, God has given — and continues to give — different revelation to different people in different times as they are prepared to receive it. Of course, I apply that much much broader than perhaps… Read more »

Hector
Guest
Hector

JCF, I dislike the word ‘Popoid’. For the record, I’m not a Roman Catholic, I’m an Anglo-Catholic with strong sympathies towards the RC church on certain specific issues (e.g. Marian dogmas). I’d agree with you that Pope Pius didn’t invent the teaching about the Assumption of Mary; he simply codified what had been generally and overwhelmingly believed (though not universally) within the church at least since the eighth century (when St. John of Damascus wrote his famous sermons on the topic). And you’re right- doctrine had to develop on this question, as on other questions. You raise a good point:… Read more »

Simon Sarmiento
Guest

Nom de Plume, would you like to unpack that comment about the Covenant a bit?

chenier1
Guest
chenier1

‘his sort of woo-woo leaves me cold’

Scholars have devoted their lives to trying to harmonise the synoptics with John on this one, without much success; since we have difficulties in demonstrating that there really was a Last Supper in the first place, I have no problem with David Stancliffe simply being sensible…

Joe
Guest
Joe

Silly me! Here I was thinking that the Jesus of the Last Supper (and the Garden and the Cross and the Tomb and the Resurrection) *was* “the whole Christ.” David’s right on this, but it needs unpacking. The anamnesis of the Eucharist is a present reality, not ancient history. We are not repeating the Last Supper in the Eucharist, nor was the Last Supper the first Eucharist (even the very conservative RC Hungarian Bishop who taught me Sacraments was clear on this): we do ‘this’ in memory of him, we don’t do ‘that’ in memory of him (if that makes… Read more »

Nom de Plume
Guest
Nom de Plume

“Nom de Plume, would you like to unpack that comment about the Covenant a bit?” Gladly. Dr Stancliffe has argued against structural uniformity as being the less desirable approach to life as a communion, and for organic diversity. The Covenant is a structural attempt to smother diversity in the Anglican Communion, which will inevitably lead to ossification of the organic, relational elements of the Anglican Communion in a quest for propositional uniformity. This would be as damaging to the Communion as would the approaches to introduction of women bishops whilst maintaining a structurally protected minority, against which Dr Stancliffe argues.… Read more »

Rod Gillis
Guest
Rod Gillis

With regard to unity and diversity and Vatican II, none de plume, may have in mind “The Decree on Ecumenism”, perhaps especially Chapter Three, The Eastern churches. However, I think nome de plume’s rational analysis of the covenant project is somewhat naive. The Covenant project is not theological or reflective, in the sense that Faith and Order papers of the WCC or ARCIC or Anglican Lutheran agreements are theological and reflective.The covenant project is driven by the internal politics of expediency and has all of the hall marks of such a process, top down power politics, creating an urgency of… Read more »

Nom de Plume
Guest
Nom de Plume

@Rod Gillis: I think that to dignify my brief comments with the title “analysis” is a bit excessive, and thus your statement that this analysis is naive is rather unfair. My point was simply that the argument that Dr Stancliffe put forward with respect to structural versus relational issues and women bishops applies, mutatis mutandi, to the Covenant project. Adopting the Covenant would be a triumph of the structural over the relational, of uniformity over unity. I agree with you that the covenant process is primarily political and that there has been insufficient attention (if any) paid to questions of… Read more »

PeterK
Guest
PeterK

“…even the very conservative RC Hungarian Bishop who taught me…”

Joe, which bishop? Miklósházy?

Rod Gillis
Guest
Rod Gillis

Nom de plume wrote “Let us assume for a moment that the Covenant is adopted and thus all discussions about sexuality grind to a halt. What will be the next shibboleth? I vote for interfaith dialogue.”

As would I. As for assumptions about desirability, the current process will result in a covenant much like one that seals a shotgun wedding–not much attention to long range planning there.

Father Ron Smith
Guest
Father Ron Smith

“The covenant project is driven by the internal politics of expediency and has all of the hall marks of such a process, top down power politics, creating an urgency of time, not based on a mutually respective dialogue between partners with differing views.” – Rod Gillis – Spot on, once again, Rod! – Although I wonder if you meant to include the word ‘respectful’ rather than ‘respective’ – in connection with the ‘dialogue between partners with different views’? Whatever, what you are saying about the fact that the Covenant is a conservatively-wrought document which actually marginalises those Provinces of the… Read more »

Rod Gillis
Guest
Rod Gillis

Earlier I agreed with nom de plume’s suggestion that if the sex controversy were to grind to a halt, the next shibboleth would be inter-faith dialogue. I suspect it has all the correct ingredients to attract the displeasure of the xenophobic. Interesting co-incidence, shortly after posting my reply, I noticed the article from Episcopal Cafe posted below. This may open up a very particular can of worms. Here in Canada the (very appropriate in my view) incorporation of native spiritual traditions into Anglican worship here, drumming, sweet grass, dance, and old terms with a distinctive first nations emphasis like “The… Read more »

Joe
Guest
Joe

PeterK: Yes, Attila Miklósházy, SJ. I was a Jesuit for more than a dozen years, and studied with him for a time, though I studied more with Bela Somfai, as I was focused more on ethics in those days. If you know either of them, we may well know each other…. (apologies to Simon for this brief inter-personal interlude in the thread)

Edward Prebble
Guest
Edward Prebble

I am sure that ‘nom de plume’ and Rod Gillis are corect in their prediction/prophecy about the next big controversy being inter-faith dialogue. I think this will be true even if by some extraordinary act of the Spirit’s grace we are saved from the covenant, and find a better way to work together through the current hot-button issue of same-sex relationships. In fact, ‘shibboleth’ may not do justice to the debates that will ensue. After all, the conservative/evangelical viewpoint has an immensely stronger biblical basis for an exclusivist approach to other faiths. Instead of 7 very debatable passages on same-sex… Read more »

Laurence Roberts
Guest
Laurence Roberts

It is irrelevant.

JCF
Guest
JCF

@Hector: Sorry for the delay, I’ve been out-of-contact for a few days. I invented the term “Popoid” (among other trial-balloons), in response to the discomfort w/ the term “Papist” (historical memory, as a term of discrimination in majority-Protestant cultures). When my former RC friend heard my neo-logism “Popoid”, that passed her muster: it has no more significance than that (so when I write “Popoid”, read “Papist”, if that term is less problematic to you). I reserve the right, however, to use some term or other, that refers to a SUBSET of all Roman Catholics, who are “loyal (i.e., submissive) to… Read more »