Alternative episcopal oversight is a theological aberration.
The Church of England is not congregationalist .
The diocesan bishop should not be negotiable even if he or she is not to the taste of a particular parish.
The Church is not a cafeteria.
David Runcorn
6 hours ago
The first question to ask in response to Paula Blake’s disturbing blog is – what did the parish profile say on the issue of LLF, the ministry of women, or expectations of a collaborative ministry. That is another way of asking if the new vicar was hiding conservative views until he was appointed?
When trust in episcopal oversight breaks down over PLF and women priests/bishops then small c congregationalism is one of the possible outcomes, for example, by giving greater weight to the parish profile agreed by the laity when appointing clergy as has been suggested. More theological in my view than the alternative episcopal oversight proposed and set up by, who else, bishops!
I am not sure, from your comments, if you understand the established place of the parish profile in the appointment process of a new vicar. It is drawn up by a consultative process by the congregation and expresses their clear sense of vision, priorities and gifts they are seeking in a new vicar. A candidate is not imposed on a church from the outside, Above all it is not an alternative ‘congregationalist’ approach when trust in the bishop has broken down. But perhaps I have misunderstood you.
Pam Wilkinson
5 hours ago
This sort of thing usually makes me angry, but this eloquent and restrained letter just made me very sad. Kicking the can down the road is never a good solution and the 2014 decisions were just that.
Sarah Mann
5 hours ago
I have the utmost sympathy for Paula Blake and am grateful for her brave and frank account. The lack of transparency to which she refers extends to her church’s website which makes no reference, that I could spot, to the parish’s stance on sexuality, or the decision to divert money to the Ephesian fund, or to alternative episcopal oversight. I hope that every person on her church’s electoral roll will be invited to the meeting she has fought for and encouraged to express their opinions.
The Church of England does not offer alternative episcopal oversight. The phrase used is deliberately ‘extended’ episcopal oversight. I know very well that most of those requesting EEO actually want AEO and use that phrase to describe it. I am surprised WATCH does not mention this in connection with the (otherwise excellent) article. I also know AEO is what CEEC et al is asking for. As others point out, this is on the way to congregationalism.
Alternative episcopal oversight is a theological aberration.
The Church of England is not congregationalist .
The diocesan bishop should not be negotiable even if he or she is not to the taste of a particular parish.
The Church is not a cafeteria.
The first question to ask in response to Paula Blake’s disturbing blog is – what did the parish profile say on the issue of LLF, the ministry of women, or expectations of a collaborative ministry. That is another way of asking if the new vicar was hiding conservative views until he was appointed?
When trust in episcopal oversight breaks down over PLF and women priests/bishops then small c congregationalism is one of the possible outcomes, for example, by giving greater weight to the parish profile agreed by the laity when appointing clergy as has been suggested. More theological in my view than the alternative episcopal oversight proposed and set up by, who else, bishops!
I am not sure, from your comments, if you understand the established place of the parish profile in the appointment process of a new vicar. It is drawn up by a consultative process by the congregation and expresses their clear sense of vision, priorities and gifts they are seeking in a new vicar. A candidate is not imposed on a church from the outside, Above all it is not an alternative ‘congregationalist’ approach when trust in the bishop has broken down. But perhaps I have misunderstood you.
This sort of thing usually makes me angry, but this eloquent and restrained letter just made me very sad. Kicking the can down the road is never a good solution and the 2014 decisions were just that.
I have the utmost sympathy for Paula Blake and am grateful for her brave and frank account. The lack of transparency to which she refers extends to her church’s website which makes no reference, that I could spot, to the parish’s stance on sexuality, or the decision to divert money to the Ephesian fund, or to alternative episcopal oversight. I hope that every person on her church’s electoral roll will be invited to the meeting she has fought for and encouraged to express their opinions.
Not so: https://www.stjohnsfelbridge.com/new-to-church/what-we-believe and scroll down.
The Church of England does not offer alternative episcopal oversight. The phrase used is deliberately ‘extended’ episcopal oversight. I know very well that most of those requesting EEO actually want AEO and use that phrase to describe it. I am surprised WATCH does not mention this in connection with the (otherwise excellent) article. I also know AEO is what CEEC et al is asking for. As others point out, this is on the way to congregationalism.