Martine Oborne is worried in case a woman wanders into one of the 500 churches which deny female ordination when there are 12500 parishes which don’t. All churches in Catholic and Orthodox Christendom subscribe to the same position as the tiny minority of CofE parishes which uphold an historical view of ordained ministry. Why is she obsessed with the small number of Anglicans who subscribe to the same beliefs as the vast majority of Christians? Demanding the removal of a tiny minority in the CofE is intolerant and unchristian and displays an intolerance she pretends not to have.
The problem is that she discerns the discrimination and prejudice later, when it is much more costly and painful to leave. But if she stays, that is costly and painful too.
It’s a mistake to assume that because the official line of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is that women cannot be ordained, all their members have the same view. They don’t.
I have no doubt the RC Church will ordain women eventually, if only out of necessity after the shortage of male ordinations creates a crisis. I suspect the majority of lay RCs are in favour of women clergy. Orthodox Christians seem to be more conservative. Martine Oborne seems to be intolerant about those who disagree with her.
Readers may not be aware that some years ago it was made a canonical offence in the Roman Catholic Church to promote the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood and any attempting to promote were warned they could face Excommunication. Jonathan
It’s certainly the case that the Catholic and Orthodox churches make no secret of limiting ordination to men. But I would’t put any money on Martine writing a blog praising those churches’ openness about it.
The question is whether the supposed lack of transparency in the CofE is Martine’s real complaint, or whether she simply wants every Anglican church to affirm women’s ordination. In which case it would be more open and transparent for her to say so.
It is not a ‘supposed’ lack of transparency. She has done the research and provides evidence. Lack of transparency is transparently what she is writing about.
Presumably Ms Oborne would be happy if a Church like All Saints Margaret Street put a note on the door saying only male priests can say mass therein. Problem solved.
All Souls Langham Place has a sermon series, easily found on its website, on the difference between men and women as far as ministry is concerned. We might not agree with it but it sets out its view in a transparent manner. I am not sure Martine is really writing about transparency.
Not so long ago the daughter of friend moved to London and attended All Souls for some time before she discovered their views on women and ministry – which she deeply disagreed with and felt rather misled. Doesn’t sound so transparent to me. In any case, if this view of women is such good news – why not celebrate it openly rather than expect people to go through sermon archives?
Why not ask at the door what sort of church it is, the first time you attend? We can all get into a tangle making assumptions about what other people are assuming.
We get people coming in who ask ‘is this a Catholic church’ all the time. ‘No we’re Church of England, but you’re very welcome’ is our reply: ‘the Catholic Mass is an hour later, 50 yards up the hill’. Some stay, others leave to get a coffee and worship in the manner of their choice later on.
I’ve scrolled back through 10 pages of sermon listings, to Nov ‘24, and can’t see any which are obviously about women’s and men’s ministry.
In any case, why not list beliefs re women’s ministry under ‘what we believe’, rather than expect people to scroll through and listen to sermon recordings?
Would a person “shopping” for a church to attend really be likely to follow a link to a “sermon series”? If the parish really wishes to be transparent about its views on the roles and value of men and women wouldn’t it be better to make a plain, easily understood statement about it on the home page?
Is ASLP really still peddling this complementarianism stuff? It is a recent invention (c1988) to give respectability to sexual discrimination. I would have thought an educated congregation could see through all this, but clearly not. John Stott took a much softer line and focused on gospel issues (of which this is not one) that mattered.
It’s true that John Stott was supportive of women in ministry, it’s not true that he didn’t teach complementarianism. It is true that All Souls then (and now) didn’t focus on complementarianism. The church taught it when they saw it in the passage in front of them; something it continues to do. All Souls works with churches who disagree with them on this issue – as Stott did. It is Oborne who wants All Souls to put it in big letters on their front page; and it is Oborne who wants everyone else to back away muttering “unclean!” Here are… Read more »
John Stott taught complementarianism and male headship. He was also in favour of female ordination, partly because he understood ordination quite differently to Catholics. I’ve put some quotes below. It is true that All Souls then didn’t focus on complementarianism – and still doesn’t. All Souls works with churches who disagree with them on this issue – as Stott did. It is Oborne who wants All Souls to put it in big letters on their front page; and it is Oborne who wants everyone else to back away muttering “unclean!” Here are some excerpts from John Stott’s chapter on ‘Women,… Read more »
I don’t doubt that, if you interpret scripture the way you do, you can come to the conclusion you do. The issue is that churches like ASLP are saying to current and future congregants that this is what we believe and to be fully included you need to be on board with this (or suck it up presumably). Trouble is some folk don’t find this out upfront as these churches would be embarrassed to have this stated in bright (actually not) lights. The campaign of WATCH (Women in the Church) (of which I am a member) is clear on this.… Read more »
Sorry Anthony, I think our conversation has got disconnected. I wasn’t arguing for complementarianism, I was disputing two points which I thought you were making: (a) that John Stott didn’t focus on this, to which I’ve responded that he did. (b) this is an issue that doesn’t matter, but churches should make a bigger deal about it. I don’t understand that. I have met two people who are wholeheartedly involved with the ministry of All Souls who also wholeheartedly affirm that women can lead churches. They know what the leadership of All Souls teaches, but they don’t regard it as… Read more »
Apparently not, as some who regard certain issues as first order issues will literally go to the stake over them, and certainly will not want to maintain fellowship with some! John Stott was very nuanced on the role of women, who he saw as equal before God. He would not have engaged with the debate in the same way as some of his successors are today. I attended occasionally in the Baughen/Stott(emeritus) years. The post-1988 position for some (few) churches is that it’s a question of ‘equal but …’ I simply want the (vanishingly few) new seekers of the faith… Read more »
As you note, the term “complementarianism” was first used in 1988.It was first used that year by founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. From what I have read, the term was intended to replace the previously used term of “patriarchy.” There has been some dispute about the terms since then. From what I understand “complementarianism” was supposed to express the concept of Biblical equality of males and females but with different Biblically prescribed roles. The new term has been criticized, among other reasons, because the term “patriarchy” has always included the concepts of sexual equality but differences… Read more »
Obviously the current terminology of ‘complementarianism’ is from the end of the 20th century. But, however much people might wish things were different, the facts of history are that for the first 1900 years of the Christian church throughout the world, there were certain roles that were male-only.
However many criticisms you might wish to make of these churches’ understandings, the one charge that surely won’t stick is that they are ‘recent invention’
For the first 1900 years of the Christian Church women could not be lawyers or sit on juries or hold judicial office; women could not take degrees or be members of professonal bodies. These limitations were abolished by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. Women could not sit in the House of Lords until 1958. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson had only become the first woman doctor in 1865 and the first female mayor (of Aldeburgh) in 1908. That the Church of England did not follow suit for another 75 years — no women priests until 1994, and not until 2015 for… Read more »
I agree that for most of its life the church suppressed women’s ministry, but can it be argued that within the community around Jesus, the community which Paul inherited, women’s ministry was quite active and affirmed. But things changed soon after that. Your “1900 years” started about 60AD.
Many scholars think, and there is some evidence to show, that women’s ministry wasn’t suppressed until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Thanks Janet, I agree, but I would have it as gradual transition of mood rather than a binary of tolerance before Constantine and suppression after I think Paul inherited a culture in which authoritative women were common (presumably a culture instituted by Jesus). Some writings by Paul can be interpreted as him accepting this and working with it, other writings as Paul wanting to control and limit women’s ministry. It can be argued either way. But over the next couple of hundred years, even before Constantine, I think the suppression slowly increased, although there would have been a huge variation… Read more »
Paul’s practice re women exercising public ministry seems to have varied according to local culture, and possibly the level of persecution of Christians at the time. His priority was that nothing must get in the way of preaching Christ, and if having women in leadership was going to cause a scandal or bring on persecution he wouldn’t promote it. But since he did promote women’s ministry at other times, we know he had no theological objection to it.
Nowadays it’s not having women in ministry and in equal roles that causes the scandal.
Thanks Janet, you have nailed the nuanced analysis that so many people miss.
We are told by traditionalists in the present day that the church should keep the traditional ban on women’s ministry and homosexual relationships. We should not import permissive ideas from the surrounding secular culture.
But such a view ignores the ironic fact that back in the first few hundred years of the church, the original suppression of women’s ministry and homosexual people did not come from any church tradition, but was imported from the surrounding Greco-Roman secular culture.
For the first 1700 hundred years of Christianity slavery was permitted, including by Christians. Are you arguing we shouldn’t have changed that? Christians were at the forefront of the Abolition Movement.
Some years ago I heard a claim that RC diocese in various Iron Curtain countries had already been ordaining women for that very reason. How true is that, do you know? ‘Needs must when the Devil drives’ may not be Biblical theology, but neither is ‘Necessity is the mother of invention.’
In that case the ordaining bishop, as well as the women he attempted to ordain, would have been immediately excommunicated, a penalty in canon law known as latae sententiae.
You know my view by now. The priority in many parishes is that someone celebrates the Eucharist every Sunday. I don’t care whether that person is male or female, ordained or lay: we should just ensure that Communion is available in every parish (and there is an argument for it being at the same time everywhere). Nationwide Eucharist at the same time in every parish could be a great renewal. Now that does not suit everyone and there should be regular (monthly?) provision for those who want an ordained man. If the church spends less on ordained ministers attached to… Read more »
Why should the Eucharist be celebrated at the same time everywhere? Local conditions differ. And priests have not yet discovered how to be in several places at the same time.
So churches all over the world ought to celebrate holy communion simultaneously, to demonstrate our unity? Not so great if it turns out to be 3 am in your location.
Many priests are, in effect, intinerent with respect to parish eucharists because they look after several parishes singlehanded, or perhaps with the help of a retired priest with permission to officiate (more than one if you are lucky). Mastering the art of simultaneous co-location would help them to provide a eucharist/communion in each parish at the same time but until then you devise a rota which provides most of the churches some of what they like/need or used to have. There are not enough priests to sustain the former pattern of a eucharist in every parish on every Sunday –… Read more »
In multi church benefices there is a good case for a service every week at the same time each week ( so that regulars and non regulars know where they are). A eucharist when it is possible, otherwise a lay led mattins/ evensong or a Service of the Word.At my church on the 1st Sunday when there was no eucharist we started an evensong and it has proved popular. The Parish Communion Movement did much good. Over the decades it has unchurched but believing people who were not particularly sacramental …I remember Evensongs in the 1950s that was the best… Read more »
Many years ago I was organist of a suburban parish church in Melbourne, Australia that had a choral tradition going back to the 1860s. One of the choirmen told me of how the congregation at Sunday evensong was 400. Within four weeks of The Forsyte Saga starting on television, it dropped to 50 and never recovered. This was not long after the film ‘On the Beach’ had been filmed in Melbourne. The actress Ava Gardner is reputed to have said they couldn’t found a better place to make a film about the end of the world. Back then there really… Read more »
And one should not forget the contributions that self-supporting ministers and ministers in secular employment make, as well as licensed lay ministers (many of whom used to take services of communion by extension).
And what time should that be? 11 AM? Inconvenient for the nurse, doctor, firefighter (or whatever) with a morning shift on Sunday. 5 PM? Difficult for the single mother with small children.
Better at renewing the nation (than eucharists) will be twice daily matins and evensong (either Prayer Book or Alternative Service) in each church, which can be led by somebody competent and believing. The needed quorum is 1 plus our God.
aljbri
1 month ago
The Sewell/Billenness report is hard reading and I am most grateful for their persistence. What I find myself wondering is where the ‘establishment players’ in this saga think it will end. A glorious apotheosis for the CofE? I don’t suppose any of them are much bothered. This is tedious ‘small people’ stuff. But the ‘arc of history…’
And it has culminated in Martin Sewell’s resignation from Synod …So who is left to champion safeguarding? Is it too much to hope the Charity Commission might wake from slumber? Or could it be referred to the police if sums of money have been ‘mislaid’?
It seems that nobody is allowed to champion safeguarding. Synod closes them down as soon as they begin to speak. That is the reason Gavin Drake walked out of a Synod meeting. Just think of the excellent support of safeguarding offered by Martin Sewell, Clive Billinness and others, all lost to a fair hearing because of ‘moving on to next business’.
I am sure now these things have come into light more can be done from outside Synod.
And just imagine you are a well- brought up alien looking at this thread because you have landed on earth by mistake but have picked up that following Jesus is a good thing to do.
Main comments- attacks, some personal,on Martine Oborne for daring to call out misogyny within the church .
Less interest in bad governance and possible financial fraud in relation to victims of safeguarding
Would you join??
Don’t you mean Ms Oborne is attacking a tiny minority in the CofE over supposed misogyny? A well brought up alien might look at the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Dalai Lama and countless other religious leaders and wonder if the CofE, which permits female ordination, is one of the few religions worth joining.
You can’t think of any outstanding female religious leaders, past or present? The Dalai Lama is a better example than eg Mother Theresa of Calcutta, or Bishop Guli?
Christopher Hichens described Mother Theresa as a “fanatic, fundamentalist and a fraud”, Her view that suffering is like being kissed by Jesus sounded rather cruel. I wouldn’t have cited her as a good example of a female religious leader.
A well brought up alien might look at the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Dalai Lama and countless other religious leaders and wonder if the CofE, which permits female ordination, is one of the few religions worth joining.
I think the point is that the next Pope, EC and Dalai Lama must needs be inevitable male.
Funnily enough, I don’t or I’d have said it. It’s quite a stretch to try and bend my post into a vehicle for yet another attack on Martine Oborne.
Do you think you need some help- personally that is as I’m sure there are plenty more men out there only too willing to troll poor Martine.
And coming back to my hypothetical alien, it doesn’t like the misuse of victims’ compensation funds.
If Martine Oborne ‘attacks’ others she should be prepared for constructive criticism from others. There are two articles heading this thread. Choosing to comment on one doesn’t denigrate the other. You are too sensitive. Why do you perceive comments to be “attacks” requiring the writer to need. some kind of “help”? That is somewhat rude .
“You are too sensitive” – Classic patronising anti-female comment. It is always women that are criticised in this way. It is implicit that, by contrast, men (the superior species) would never allow themselves to be ruled by mere emotions.
If the well-brought-up alien had had the opportunity to visit the little town of Arborfield, Saskatchewan just before Covid, he might have had the good fortune to meet my old friend Betty Burningham, who died in her eighties during the pandemic. She was the most Christlike person I have ever known—a person of love, joy, courage, and resilience (she survived cancer four times). You don’t have to be as famous as Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama to bring credit to the faith you profess. I’m sure that our well-brought-up alien would have considered Betty an outstanding advertisement for –… Read more »
I’m sure many clergy could cite inspiring women Christians they have encountered in ministry. They often put us to shame in their devotion, commitment and love.
I am extremely sorry, but not surprised, to hear of Martin Sewell’s resignation from Synod. He has had much previous cause to do so, perhaps most egregiously when two of his questions to the York Synod two years ago were completely rewritten and their meaning inverted, entirely without his knowledge.
When Justin Welby resigned, reluctantly and tardily, I said in these columns that, if William Nye did not go too, nothing would change. He hasn’t gone and nothing has changed, as evidenced by this most recent abuse of procedure. Move on, nothing to see here!
I came across this quote today from Thomas Paine, 18th century philosopher and statesman. “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody”. I cannot think of a more apposite analysis of the General Synod reaction to the motion described in the Surviving Church article.
Martine Oborne is worried in case a woman wanders into one of the 500 churches which deny female ordination when there are 12500 parishes which don’t. All churches in Catholic and Orthodox Christendom subscribe to the same position as the tiny minority of CofE parishes which uphold an historical view of ordained ministry. Why is she obsessed with the small number of Anglicans who subscribe to the same beliefs as the vast majority of Christians? Demanding the removal of a tiny minority in the CofE is intolerant and unchristian and displays an intolerance she pretends not to have.
The problem is not that these churches exist, but that they are not transparent about their views
If a woman attended such a Church and wasn’t able to discern any discrimination or prejudice, what is the problem?
The problem is that she discerns the discrimination and prejudice later, when it is much more costly and painful to leave. But if she stays, that is costly and painful too.
The fact that the discrimination is there, but not discernable is the problem!
It’s a mistake to assume that because the official line of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches is that women cannot be ordained, all their members have the same view. They don’t.
There have always been dissenters from the official teachings of the Church.
I have no doubt the RC Church will ordain women eventually, if only out of necessity after the shortage of male ordinations creates a crisis. I suspect the majority of lay RCs are in favour of women clergy. Orthodox Christians seem to be more conservative. Martine Oborne seems to be intolerant about those who disagree with her.
Readers may not be aware that some years ago it was made a canonical offence in the Roman Catholic Church to promote the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood and any attempting to promote were warned they could face Excommunication. Jonathan
Has anybody actually been excommunicated? Is it likely?
What has then happened to Catholics for Women’s Ordination?
It’s certainly the case that the Catholic and Orthodox churches make no secret of limiting ordination to men. But I would’t put any money on Martine writing a blog praising those churches’ openness about it.
The question is whether the supposed lack of transparency in the CofE is Martine’s real complaint, or whether she simply wants every Anglican church to affirm women’s ordination. In which case it would be more open and transparent for her to say so.
It is not a ‘supposed’ lack of transparency. She has done the research and provides evidence. Lack of transparency is transparently what she is writing about.
Presumably Ms Oborne would be happy if a Church like All Saints Margaret Street put a note on the door saying only male priests can say mass therein. Problem solved.
That is transparency is it not?
All Souls Langham Place has a sermon series, easily found on its website, on the difference between men and women as far as ministry is concerned. We might not agree with it but it sets out its view in a transparent manner. I am not sure Martine is really writing about transparency.
Not so long ago the daughter of friend moved to London and attended All Souls for some time before she discovered their views on women and ministry – which she deeply disagreed with and felt rather misled. Doesn’t sound so transparent to me. In any case, if this view of women is such good news – why not celebrate it openly rather than expect people to go through sermon archives?
Why not ask at the door what sort of church it is, the first time you attend? We can all get into a tangle making assumptions about what other people are assuming.
We get people coming in who ask ‘is this a Catholic church’ all the time. ‘No we’re Church of England, but you’re very welcome’ is our reply: ‘the Catholic Mass is an hour later, 50 yards up the hill’. Some stay, others leave to get a coffee and worship in the manner of their choice later on.
I’ve scrolled back through 10 pages of sermon listings, to Nov ‘24, and can’t see any which are obviously about women’s and men’s ministry.
In any case, why not list beliefs re women’s ministry under ‘what we believe’, rather than expect people to scroll through and listen to sermon recordings?
Would a person “shopping” for a church to attend really be likely to follow a link to a “sermon series”? If the parish really wishes to be transparent about its views on the roles and value of men and women wouldn’t it be better to make a plain, easily understood statement about it on the home page?
Is ASLP really still peddling this complementarianism stuff? It is a recent invention (c1988) to give respectability to sexual discrimination. I would have thought an educated congregation could see through all this, but clearly not. John Stott took a much softer line and focused on gospel issues (of which this is not one) that mattered.
It’s true that John Stott was supportive of women in ministry, it’s not true that he didn’t teach complementarianism. It is true that All Souls then (and now) didn’t focus on complementarianism. The church taught it when they saw it in the passage in front of them; something it continues to do. All Souls works with churches who disagree with them on this issue – as Stott did. It is Oborne who wants All Souls to put it in big letters on their front page; and it is Oborne who wants everyone else to back away muttering “unclean!” Here are… Read more »
John Stott taught complementarianism and male headship. He was also in favour of female ordination, partly because he understood ordination quite differently to Catholics. I’ve put some quotes below. It is true that All Souls then didn’t focus on complementarianism – and still doesn’t. All Souls works with churches who disagree with them on this issue – as Stott did. It is Oborne who wants All Souls to put it in big letters on their front page; and it is Oborne who wants everyone else to back away muttering “unclean!” Here are some excerpts from John Stott’s chapter on ‘Women,… Read more »
I don’t doubt that, if you interpret scripture the way you do, you can come to the conclusion you do. The issue is that churches like ASLP are saying to current and future congregants that this is what we believe and to be fully included you need to be on board with this (or suck it up presumably). Trouble is some folk don’t find this out upfront as these churches would be embarrassed to have this stated in bright (actually not) lights. The campaign of WATCH (Women in the Church) (of which I am a member) is clear on this.… Read more »
Sorry Anthony, I think our conversation has got disconnected. I wasn’t arguing for complementarianism, I was disputing two points which I thought you were making: (a) that John Stott didn’t focus on this, to which I’ve responded that he did. (b) this is an issue that doesn’t matter, but churches should make a bigger deal about it. I don’t understand that. I have met two people who are wholeheartedly involved with the ministry of All Souls who also wholeheartedly affirm that women can lead churches. They know what the leadership of All Souls teaches, but they don’t regard it as… Read more »
And can we then not disagree over other ethical issues without breaking fellowship? Just wondering. War and peace for example…
Apparently not, as some who regard certain issues as first order issues will literally go to the stake over them, and certainly will not want to maintain fellowship with some! John Stott was very nuanced on the role of women, who he saw as equal before God. He would not have engaged with the debate in the same way as some of his successors are today. I attended occasionally in the Baughen/Stott(emeritus) years. The post-1988 position for some (few) churches is that it’s a question of ‘equal but …’ I simply want the (vanishingly few) new seekers of the faith… Read more »
As you note, the term “complementarianism” was first used in 1988.It was first used that year by founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. From what I have read, the term was intended to replace the previously used term of “patriarchy.” There has been some dispute about the terms since then. From what I understand “complementarianism” was supposed to express the concept of Biblical equality of males and females but with different Biblically prescribed roles. The new term has been criticized, among other reasons, because the term “patriarchy” has always included the concepts of sexual equality but differences… Read more »
Obviously the current terminology of ‘complementarianism’ is from the end of the 20th century. But, however much people might wish things were different, the facts of history are that for the first 1900 years of the Christian church throughout the world, there were certain roles that were male-only.
However many criticisms you might wish to make of these churches’ understandings, the one charge that surely won’t stick is that they are ‘recent invention’
For the first 1900 years of the Christian Church women could not be lawyers or sit on juries or hold judicial office; women could not take degrees or be members of professonal bodies. These limitations were abolished by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919. Women could not sit in the House of Lords until 1958. Elizabeth Garrett Anderson had only become the first woman doctor in 1865 and the first female mayor (of Aldeburgh) in 1908. That the Church of England did not follow suit for another 75 years — no women priests until 1994, and not until 2015 for… Read more »
I agree that for most of its life the church suppressed women’s ministry, but can it be argued that within the community around Jesus, the community which Paul inherited, women’s ministry was quite active and affirmed. But things changed soon after that. Your “1900 years” started about 60AD.
Many scholars think, and there is some evidence to show, that women’s ministry wasn’t suppressed until Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Thanks Janet, I agree, but I would have it as gradual transition of mood rather than a binary of tolerance before Constantine and suppression after I think Paul inherited a culture in which authoritative women were common (presumably a culture instituted by Jesus). Some writings by Paul can be interpreted as him accepting this and working with it, other writings as Paul wanting to control and limit women’s ministry. It can be argued either way. But over the next couple of hundred years, even before Constantine, I think the suppression slowly increased, although there would have been a huge variation… Read more »
Paul’s practice re women exercising public ministry seems to have varied according to local culture, and possibly the level of persecution of Christians at the time. His priority was that nothing must get in the way of preaching Christ, and if having women in leadership was going to cause a scandal or bring on persecution he wouldn’t promote it. But since he did promote women’s ministry at other times, we know he had no theological objection to it.
Nowadays it’s not having women in ministry and in equal roles that causes the scandal.
Thanks Janet, you have nailed the nuanced analysis that so many people miss.
We are told by traditionalists in the present day that the church should keep the traditional ban on women’s ministry and homosexual relationships. We should not import permissive ideas from the surrounding secular culture.
But such a view ignores the ironic fact that back in the first few hundred years of the church, the original suppression of women’s ministry and homosexual people did not come from any church tradition, but was imported from the surrounding Greco-Roman secular culture.
For the first 1700 hundred years of Christianity slavery was permitted, including by Christians. Are you arguing we shouldn’t have changed that? Christians were at the forefront of the Abolition Movement.
Some years ago I heard a claim that RC diocese in various Iron Curtain countries had already been ordaining women for that very reason. How true is that, do you know? ‘Needs must when the Devil drives’ may not be Biblical theology, but neither is ‘Necessity is the mother of invention.’
In that case the ordaining bishop, as well as the women he attempted to ordain, would have been immediately excommunicated, a penalty in canon law known as latae sententiae.
You know my view by now. The priority in many parishes is that someone celebrates the Eucharist every Sunday. I don’t care whether that person is male or female, ordained or lay: we should just ensure that Communion is available in every parish (and there is an argument for it being at the same time everywhere). Nationwide Eucharist at the same time in every parish could be a great renewal. Now that does not suit everyone and there should be regular (monthly?) provision for those who want an ordained man. If the church spends less on ordained ministers attached to… Read more »
Why should the Eucharist be celebrated at the same time everywhere? Local conditions differ. And priests have not yet discovered how to be in several places at the same time.
And why shouldn’t those priests be gay?
There is no theological reason for co-celebration but symbolically it stresses the unity of the Church.
If at parish level we are fully inclusive then the itinerant priests need to cater to the most hardline orthodox need.
So churches all over the world ought to celebrate holy communion simultaneously, to demonstrate our unity? Not so great if it turns out to be 3 am in your location.
Many priests are, in effect, intinerent with respect to parish eucharists because they look after several parishes singlehanded, or perhaps with the help of a retired priest with permission to officiate (more than one if you are lucky). Mastering the art of simultaneous co-location would help them to provide a eucharist/communion in each parish at the same time but until then you devise a rota which provides most of the churches some of what they like/need or used to have. There are not enough priests to sustain the former pattern of a eucharist in every parish on every Sunday –… Read more »
Kate’s solution to enabling a Eucharist to take place every week is by abolishing Anglicanism.
In multi church benefices there is a good case for a service every week at the same time each week ( so that regulars and non regulars know where they are). A eucharist when it is possible, otherwise a lay led mattins/ evensong or a Service of the Word.At my church on the 1st Sunday when there was no eucharist we started an evensong and it has proved popular. The Parish Communion Movement did much good. Over the decades it has unchurched but believing people who were not particularly sacramental …I remember Evensongs in the 1950s that was the best… Read more »
Many years ago I was organist of a suburban parish church in Melbourne, Australia that had a choral tradition going back to the 1860s. One of the choirmen told me of how the congregation at Sunday evensong was 400. Within four weeks of The Forsyte Saga starting on television, it dropped to 50 and never recovered. This was not long after the film ‘On the Beach’ had been filmed in Melbourne. The actress Ava Gardner is reputed to have said they couldn’t found a better place to make a film about the end of the world. Back then there really… Read more »
And one should not forget the contributions that self-supporting ministers and ministers in secular employment make, as well as licensed lay ministers (many of whom used to take services of communion by extension).
And what time should that be? 11 AM? Inconvenient for the nurse, doctor, firefighter (or whatever) with a morning shift on Sunday. 5 PM? Difficult for the single mother with small children.
And in what way does the gender or sexuality of the presider affect “traditional form of worship”, if said person is following the text of the BoP?
BoP?
Sorry, I mistyped. Should have been BCP.
Better at renewing the nation (than eucharists) will be twice daily matins and evensong (either Prayer Book or Alternative Service) in each church, which can be led by somebody competent and believing. The needed quorum is 1 plus our God.
The Sewell/Billenness report is hard reading and I am most grateful for their persistence. What I find myself wondering is where the ‘establishment players’ in this saga think it will end. A glorious apotheosis for the CofE? I don’t suppose any of them are much bothered. This is tedious ‘small people’ stuff. But the ‘arc of history…’
And it has culminated in Martin Sewell’s resignation from Synod …So who is left to champion safeguarding? Is it too much to hope the Charity Commission might wake from slumber? Or could it be referred to the police if sums of money have been ‘mislaid’?
It seems that nobody is allowed to champion safeguarding. Synod closes them down as soon as they begin to speak. That is the reason Gavin Drake walked out of a Synod meeting. Just think of the excellent support of safeguarding offered by Martin Sewell, Clive Billinness and others, all lost to a fair hearing because of ‘moving on to next business’.
I am sure now these things have come into light more can be done from outside Synod.
And just imagine you are a well- brought up alien looking at this thread because you have landed on earth by mistake but have picked up that following Jesus is a good thing to do.
Main comments- attacks, some personal,on Martine Oborne for daring to call out misogyny within the church .
Less interest in bad governance and possible financial fraud in relation to victims of safeguarding
Would you join??
Don’t you mean Ms Oborne is attacking a tiny minority in the CofE over supposed misogyny? A well brought up alien might look at the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Dalai Lama and countless other religious leaders and wonder if the CofE, which permits female ordination, is one of the few religions worth joining.
You can’t think of any outstanding female religious leaders, past or present? The Dalai Lama is a better example than eg Mother Theresa of Calcutta, or Bishop Guli?
Christopher Hichens described Mother Theresa as a “fanatic, fundamentalist and a fraud”, Her view that suffering is like being kissed by Jesus sounded rather cruel. I wouldn’t have cited her as a good example of a female religious leader.
Well, if you’re a follower of Christopher Hitchens…
What about Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, Hild of Whitby, Brigid of Ireland? Barbara Taylor Brown?
I agree
A well brought up alien might look at the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Dalai Lama and countless other religious leaders and wonder if the CofE, which permits female ordination, is one of the few religions worth joining.
I think the point is that the next Pope, EC and Dalai Lama must needs be inevitable male.
Not true. The present Dalai Lama has said his successor can be female.
Funnily enough, I don’t or I’d have said it. It’s quite a stretch to try and bend my post into a vehicle for yet another attack on Martine Oborne.
Do you think you need some help- personally that is as I’m sure there are plenty more men out there only too willing to troll poor Martine.
And coming back to my hypothetical alien, it doesn’t like the misuse of victims’ compensation funds.
If Martine Oborne ‘attacks’ others she should be prepared for constructive criticism from others. There are two articles heading this thread. Choosing to comment on one doesn’t denigrate the other. You are too sensitive. Why do you perceive comments to be “attacks” requiring the writer to need. some kind of “help”? That is somewhat rude .
“You are too sensitive” – Classic patronising anti-female comment. It is always women that are criticised in this way. It is implicit that, by contrast, men (the superior species) would never allow themselves to be ruled by mere emotions.
Absolute nonsense. I’ve met countless sensitive men.
Sensitive, but not “too sensitive” – of course not, they are men!
You are nit-picking and are far too sensitive.
If the well-brought-up alien had had the opportunity to visit the little town of Arborfield, Saskatchewan just before Covid, he might have had the good fortune to meet my old friend Betty Burningham, who died in her eighties during the pandemic. She was the most Christlike person I have ever known—a person of love, joy, courage, and resilience (she survived cancer four times). You don’t have to be as famous as Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama to bring credit to the faith you profess. I’m sure that our well-brought-up alien would have considered Betty an outstanding advertisement for –… Read more »
I’m sure many clergy could cite inspiring women Christians they have encountered in ministry. They often put us to shame in their devotion, commitment and love.
Amen to that.
I am extremely sorry, but not surprised, to hear of Martin Sewell’s resignation from Synod. He has had much previous cause to do so, perhaps most egregiously when two of his questions to the York Synod two years ago were completely rewritten and their meaning inverted, entirely without his knowledge.
When Justin Welby resigned, reluctantly and tardily, I said in these columns that, if William Nye did not go too, nothing would change. He hasn’t gone and nothing has changed, as evidenced by this most recent abuse of procedure. Move on, nothing to see here!
Why can’t William Nye be touched? Is he a Free Mson or something?
I came across this quote today from Thomas Paine, 18th century philosopher and statesman. “A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody”. I cannot think of a more apposite analysis of the General Synod reaction to the motion described in the Surviving Church article.