Since the C of E is now handing out à la carte bishoprics to different doctrinal camps, when can we look forward to Jeffrey John’s consecration to the “see of Rievaulx”?
Charles Read
8 years ago
So if you look at the Belief section you will see a pretty clear statement of subordinationism. Is anyone going to question the fitness of this bishop to be a guardian of the faith given that this is outwith Chalcedonian orthodoxy?
There is also a total misreading of Genesis 1 and 2 and of the Hebrew word ‘ezer.
Dr Edward Prebble
8 years ago
Reading parts of this website soon after reading the SSWSH statement is enough to cause severe indigestion. I will concede that both groups are trying to be gracious and charitable in how they express their arguments, but both leave me with a fundamental dilemma. I have come to describe my own theological position as “Broadstream Anglican Inclusiveness”. But how can I, whose whole orientation is to be inclusive (as I believe God to be), include you, if your carefully expressed position excludes me? Well, I will continue to draw on whatever sources of grace and charity are available, and I… Read more »
Father David
8 years ago
NOLI ME TANGERE
Hilary Cotton
8 years ago
I see from his website that the Bishop of Maidstone is now to attend the House of Bishops as well as the College. Perhaps this was inevitable, but it still grates. It would be good to know how that has happened: are the House of Bishops Standing Orders such that they can invite anyone whenever they please? I wonder what it would take for the House to say ‘No’ to anyone?
John
8 years ago
Translation?
Andrew Godsall
8 years ago
I am delighted to see this statement in respect of the five guiding princples:
“What is being required is assent, not agreement. As Stephen Hofmeyer QC has put it, assenting merely requires acknowledgement of what the Church of England has done, as an entity. It does not require the individual to agree personally with the commitment or the decision.”
It’s exactly what many of us have been saying about the 39 articles and various other formularies that we have been accused of ignoring in the past – and particularly accused, I note, by conservative evangelicals.
Diabolism is the act of splintering, insinuating. The C of E seems to be diabolical..
Father David
8 years ago
The words the risen Lord said to Mary of Magdala on the first glorious Easter Morn – “Do Not Touch Me”.
robert ian williams
8 years ago
Its good to think there is a least now one bishop who will keep to the Anglican tradition of not wearing a mitre.
John
8 years ago
Father David,
My little joke, not a serious request.
Father David
8 years ago
John, quite so, but isn’t it marvellous to think that the Lord was a Classical scholar and fluent in the Latin tongue?
John
8 years ago
Nice to have fun, even on TA.
Benedict
8 years ago
The answer to Hilary Cotton’s question must surely be a resounding yes. After all, eight women in senior positions were invited to meetings of the House of Bishops, and they weren’t even bishops at the time!!!
Barry
8 years ago
Does anyone know if the Bishop of Maidstone had a woman bishop laying on hands?
Pete Broadbent
8 years ago
Of course not. It’s also why he was consecrated with two men and not with the two women who were in the offing and were done at St Paul’s instead.
Since the C of E is now handing out à la carte bishoprics to different doctrinal camps, when can we look forward to Jeffrey John’s consecration to the “see of Rievaulx”?
So if you look at the Belief section you will see a pretty clear statement of subordinationism. Is anyone going to question the fitness of this bishop to be a guardian of the faith given that this is outwith Chalcedonian orthodoxy?
There is also a total misreading of Genesis 1 and 2 and of the Hebrew word ‘ezer.
Reading parts of this website soon after reading the SSWSH statement is enough to cause severe indigestion. I will concede that both groups are trying to be gracious and charitable in how they express their arguments, but both leave me with a fundamental dilemma. I have come to describe my own theological position as “Broadstream Anglican Inclusiveness”. But how can I, whose whole orientation is to be inclusive (as I believe God to be), include you, if your carefully expressed position excludes me? Well, I will continue to draw on whatever sources of grace and charity are available, and I… Read more »
NOLI ME TANGERE
I see from his website that the Bishop of Maidstone is now to attend the House of Bishops as well as the College. Perhaps this was inevitable, but it still grates. It would be good to know how that has happened: are the House of Bishops Standing Orders such that they can invite anyone whenever they please? I wonder what it would take for the House to say ‘No’ to anyone?
Translation?
I am delighted to see this statement in respect of the five guiding princples:
“What is being required is assent, not agreement. As Stephen Hofmeyer QC has put it, assenting merely requires acknowledgement of what the Church of England has done, as an entity. It does not require the individual to agree personally with the commitment or the decision.”
It’s exactly what many of us have been saying about the 39 articles and various other formularies that we have been accused of ignoring in the past – and particularly accused, I note, by conservative evangelicals.
Thank you Rod!
Diabolism is the act of splintering, insinuating. The C of E seems to be diabolical..
The words the risen Lord said to Mary of Magdala on the first glorious Easter Morn – “Do Not Touch Me”.
Its good to think there is a least now one bishop who will keep to the Anglican tradition of not wearing a mitre.
Father David,
My little joke, not a serious request.
John, quite so, but isn’t it marvellous to think that the Lord was a Classical scholar and fluent in the Latin tongue?
Nice to have fun, even on TA.
The answer to Hilary Cotton’s question must surely be a resounding yes. After all, eight women in senior positions were invited to meetings of the House of Bishops, and they weren’t even bishops at the time!!!
Does anyone know if the Bishop of Maidstone had a woman bishop laying on hands?
Of course not. It’s also why he was consecrated with two men and not with the two women who were in the offing and were done at St Paul’s instead.