Martin Beckford reports in the Telegraph on a speech made by the Bishop of Fulham: Church of England’s parliament is ‘sinful’ over women bishops vote, says Bishop of Fulham.
…In a keynote address to the annual meeting of Forward in Faith, the church’s Anglo-Catholic wing of which he is chairman, Bishop Broadhurst told members that the Synod’s decision had been wrong and urged them not to leave the church as the outcome of the dispute could still be changed.
He said: “The General Synod is presuming to change things as it wills, presuming to decide doctrine separate from the tradition, separate from scripture, separate from the universal brief and practice of the church. Sinful presumption, sinful.
“This is not a vote we’ve lost, this is sin. This is human beings presuming to tell God in Jesus Christ he got it wrong, presuming to tell the majority of Christians we know better.”
He went on to say the Synod is “unfit for purpose” because it does not consider God first and added to applause: “The sooner it is trimmed, culled, sorted or even destroyed, the better.”
Bishop Broadhurst, who earlier in the year accused liberals of “institutional bullying” and warned of legal battles over churches if traditionalists defect to Rome, added that the Synod’s decisions can be undone and reiterated that he wants it to create a separate jurisdiction enshrined in law for opponents of women bishops, not a “ghetto for bigots”…
You can hear the whole of this speech, by going to this link.
At the same page, there is also a presentation on what happened in the July General Synod debate by David Houlding.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones has also commented on this here.
The Church of England Newspaper had a report by Toby Cohen about the recent meeting of the House of Bishops. Religious Intelligence carries English Church discusses ‘complementary’ bishops plan.
As the English House of Bishops met to discuss the Church of England’s future, a Synod insider revealed that plans are already in place to provide ‘flying bishops’ for those who cannot accept women bishops.
The bishops gathered in London earlier this week with a series of momentous debates to be thrashed out, on topics including women bishops, complementary or ‘flying’ bishops, Anglican governance, and the broken state of the Communion following the divisions in The Episcopal Church. The agenda for the discussions is supposedly kept private, but several of the debates have already spilled out into the public domain.
An anonymous bishop revealed last weekend that flying bishops would be provided for those who could not accept the authority of women bishops. Synod lay member, Paul Eddy, has now confirmed to Religious Intelligence that the reports were true, although he was not at liberty to reveal the identity of the Bishop.
He said the Church was preparing to offer oversight for traditionalists who could not accept the authority of women bishops: “It will happen, there’s no doubt about it. That’s why we need to stop playing politics with it, and actually unite and do something about it.
“There are conversations going on already, I know at least 12 parishes and two key dioceses where people have come together and have already sorted out the oversight.”
“…warned of legal battles over churches if traditionalists defect to Rome…”
Don’t the buildings of the CofE belong to the State? If not, who does own them?
the buildings belong to the people of the parish (not the Church-goers) and are looked after and held in trust on their behalf and on behalf of future generations by the vicar, wardens and parochial church councils.
Buildings belong to the incumbent of the parish. If he (and in this case it will be) resigns and goes over to Rome then he no longer owns the building and the patron of the living will appoint a new incumbent.
There is no provision anywhere, nor have I heard any plans for such, for there to be any sort of ‘split’ of the church. Those who cannot remain in the Church of England will leave it, the Church will not divide.
“There is no provision anywhere, nor have I heard any plans for such, for there to be any sort of ‘split’ of the church. Those who cannot remain in the Church of England will leave it, the Church will not divide.” Wilf
Neither is there a provision in TEC for such. Yet it is happening.
The Bishop of Fulham is due to retire soon so perhaps that is why he feels able to indulge in more and more outrageous comments. Unfortunately he’s still on the payroll of the C of E so we’re paying for him to act in such an anarchic fashion!
He has become a reason par excellence why there should be no more special interest ‘flying bishops’.
Typically, the leading FiF bishop begs the OOW question instead of dealing with the issues. As a leader he would be better advised to help craft a solution in light of the fact that his negative views of women and of OOW have lost and/or are losing the day – generationally, if nothing else. He could assist his folks to sort out how to witness and worship in a new world where consevo powers to interfere with qualified women are yet again losing intellectual and ethical traction. He does not bother, of course. Instead he layers on odd remarks to… Read more »
Wilf, that’s been TEC’s line, too. What happens if the incumbent tries to go Roman without resigning?
Jon
“He went on to say the Synod is “unfit for purpose” because it does not consider God first and added to applause: “The sooner it is trimmed, culled, sorted or even destroyed, the better.””
Good heavens. This sounds rather like the RAGE we’ve been hearing at McCain-Palin rallies (Dress code: shirt, brown) this week: “HOW DARE THEY DISAGREE WITH US?!”
Us/Them: that’s the relevant dichotomy, Bishop Broadhurst. NOT “General Synod/God”!
Welcome to the over-ruled minority, Bishop: we LGBTs and women-called-to-orders, who’ve lived this way for decades, will be happy to tell you what that’s like…
Lord have mercy!
“There are conversations going on already, I know at least 12 parishes and two key dioceses where people have come together and have already sorted out the oversight.”
You know, this seems like a very odd way to drive the True Faithful out of the Church. I’m losing faith in the ability of the Evil Hell Bound Liberals’ ability to purify the Church of all that is good and Christian. I mean, we’re not going to get rid of the Holy Ones if we coddle them like this.
God’s plans for Creation and the occupants of this planet continue to be rolled out. With or without the help of angels, priests, prophets or men. It’s just that it’s less embarassing when souls cooperate with God. God Will will be done, on earth as it is done in heaven. It is very naughty to insist that the status quo continue and claim scriptural precedent to justify current abuses and misdemeanours. Jesus understood when he rebuked the Pharisees Matthew 23:31 “So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.” The forgotten or unfilled… Read more »
Can’t those who can not accept a woman bishop just see someone else for pastoral care?
Bishop Broadhurst wrote: ““This is not a vote we’ve lost, this is sin. This is human beings presuming to tell God in Jesus Christ he got it wrong, presuming to tell the majority of Christians we know better.”
I am amazed that this man presumes to put words in the mouth of Jesus that were never uttered.
But, I’m sure that if Broadhurst decided that Jesus should have said it, then that automatically means that the rest of us should give in to his rantings about women bishops.
After all, who is more important, Broadhurst or Jesus?
bobinswpa, not good enough. I think the expectation is purity of line – no hands which have ordained a woman or been ordained by hands which have ordained a woman or supported ordination of women even without actually laying on hands etc. can be permitted to belong to the bishop who has authority over the priest and/or congregation. I have read (apocryphal?) stories that lists are being kept recording who ordained women or were ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop who was ordained or consecrated by a bishop or bishops who at one time ordained or… Read more »
Well, I must say this is a first. I am in partial agreement with the Bishop of Fulham. The General Synod of the Church of England has indeed acted rashly and without due regard to theology. I am speaking, of course, of the ecclesiological innovation inherent in the introduction of Flying Bishops, of which the C of E should repent posthaste. I note Wales has led the way.
“This is not a vote we’ve lost, this is sin. This is human beings presuming to tell God in Jesus Christ he got it wrong, presuming to tell the majority of Christians we know better.”
Who owns the problem? Start with that.
Blaming God and Christ does not help. There is a problem and someone owns it.
How about naming it and addressing it, instead of complaining?
As it is, it’s impossible to get anyone even giving their “reasons” for denying the calling of women…
Who owns the problem?
The Catholic Church would never accept a defecting congregation stealing their building. In 1829, the Catholic Church, on the eve of catholic emancipation promised not to make any claims on Church of England propperty.
Folks this is FIF hype….remember Wales…. not one defection since the “flying” bishop was scrapped.
Ladies call their bluff.
Oh, Robert, you are a scream! “The Catholic Church would never accept a defecting congregation stealing their building. In 1829, the Catholic Church, on the eve of catholic emancipation promised not to make any claims on Church of England propperty.” – RIW What are you really trying to say here Robert? That the Roman Catholic Church actually owned any of the Anglican Church Buildings before the Emancipation Act allowed them to the R.C. Church to legally exist as a separate denomination in the United Kingdom? One would almost imagine that you were really thinking they had a claim to them.… Read more »
Rev. Lois:
This reminds me, unfortunately, of the “just one drop” rule of being black in the Jim Crow South in the US.
And to think the Catholic Revival began as a reaction against Erastianism. How the mighty have fallen…
Of course the Catholic Church had a claim on the pre-reformation buildings..but it had to give up any such claim, as an assurance before Catholic emnacipation was granted. So a Forward in Faith parish who went over to Rome could not bring the building with them. Just look at these magnificent structures and even after the vandalisation of the Reformation, there are clues as to the faith of the builders. You are leg puller Ron, because you will not acknowledge that for three hundred years , no one ( and still only a party within a wider Church ) interpretated… Read more »
|Goran – you are wrong. The reasons have been given so very many times but no-one ever answers them. The Bishop of Rochester produced a report- Synod thanked him and did nothing. Now Manchester bemoans the fact that Synod does not actually debate what sort of church it wishes to be- ignoring theology and choosing sociology instead. Just for you – visit my blog http://www.sbarnabas.com/blog and click on the link on the right (under articles) for women’s ordination. The reasons are all there. Do get back to me on how I am wrong and you might just assure me of… Read more »
Thanks Rev Lois. I guess after years of accepting Bob Duncan as my bishop, I’ve gotten use to accepting people who might not be my first choice. Some of these men should try it. I called it “trying to see Christ in everyone.”
I just don’t see how these people can accept a woman as queen but not as a bishop. I’m an Anglo-Catholic and I don’t mind. I worked with some terrific women priest. I guess I don’t see why what you have below your belt should determine what you can and can not do!
The bishop of Fulham is illogical. If ordaining women bishops is a sin, then he should just oppose it and not seek any opt outs for him and his friends. By going for the opt outs, he is colluding with the sin of General Synod.
In short, he is long on rhetoric and short on logic (and theology).
I note also that it is bishops who are saying that the bishops should mke all the decisions. This is a common phenomenon – Stephen Sykes came to believe in the supreme authority of the bishop after he became one!
I should point out that my use of the word sin above should be ‘sin’.
I do not believe the Synod to be any more (or less) sinful than any other Christian body and seeking to have a prieshood that reflects the image of God as revealed in the Holy Scriptures (Gen 1:26-27)cannot be sinful.
What Bible is Broadhurst reading – or can he not see for all the incense?
“I just don’t see how these people can accept a woman as queen but not as a bishop.”
Because the Queen doesn’t have a sacramental role? I support OOW, and female bishops, but this argument is a non-starter. What I can’t understand is how these people can accept a monarch having any control whatsoever in the process by which the Church discerns God’s will in the selection of a bishop.
Fr Ed Tomlinson/erstwhile rugy-playing priest, Of course, you are absolutely right that Goran is absolutely wrong to claim that ‘liberal’ arguments on this issue have never been answered. On the other hand, you are absolutely wrong to claim that the arguments on your side have never been answered. The simple point is: neither of you accept the adequacy of the answers given. As you know, I personally accept/and am absolutely committed to/ the rightness of the ‘liberal’ arguments, and I’m not impressed by the fact that the Pope, the Magisterium etc. disagrees with me. The point (again) is that the… Read more »
Ford, perhaps you have forgotten that, in the English monarchical tradition, the Sovereign is given a sacred anointing at her/his coronation. This anointing process was not allowed to be televised (as different from the ‘anointing’ by the Global South Primates of the faux bishops who have found their way into the modern day CANA). At Queen Elizabeth’s Coronation, her entrance into the Abbey was greeted with the Handel Anthem ‘Zadok the Priest’ – not to ackowledge Her Majesty’s sacramental priesthood, but her right to reign, and to be Titular Head of the C.of E. My point in mentioning the Queen… Read more »
But what Broadhurst and Fif were proposing was blackmail pure and simple..give us what we want and we will allow you to have your women bishops…what hypocrisy. If they genuinely believed women bishops was an evil development and offensive to God, they should not strike deals about it.
Rather better than the Bishop of Fulham is Fr. Jonathan Baker’s contribution, which explains, for those who might bother to listen, the position of Catholic Anglicans.
The Queen is ordinary to both the Archbishop of Canterbury and York..and their jurisdiction if not their orders comes exclusively from her. This derives from Henry VIII in January 1535 when he made the Catholic bishops returm their Papal bulls of appointment and re-issued them with his Commission via his Vicar General Thomas Cromwell. As for Jonathan Baker he deliberately avoids the Protestantism of the early Anglican Fathers…he makes no mention that Hooker deprecated the idea of a sacrificing priesthood or the absolute necessity of episcopacy. he obscures the fact that Laud and many of the seventeenth century divines viewed… Read more »
Ed Tomlinson, John,
On a personal note… I lived from age 4 months to late August 1993 in the last Diocese in Sweden which refused to ordain women. The refusnic bishop was a childhood chum of my mother from age 5, and his wife a friend of hers from high school.
I have often asked for the reasons some don’t beleieve women are, or can be called to the prieshood, but haven’t been told any. If be.
The consequence is, I very much doubt there are any. But I’ll have a look at your link.
“If they genuinely believed women bishops was an evil development and offensive to God, they should not strike deals about it.” – R.I.W.
Robert, where do you stand on this issue. Do you, as a newely-hatched R.C., also believe that ‘women bishops was an evil development and offensive to God’? Or are you in open rebellion against the Roman Magisterium here? Tell us!
Fr Edward Tomlinson, I found 2 basic arguments and a few auxiliaries, but no reasons. They are: 1) Essentialism (from Ancient Platonisms but much more prominent in Modernity); Being Priest versus doing (no Lutheran would accept that as more than a very partial answer/blindness – Priest is both. Gender R o l e s & c. Non-Gospel in-essentials all. 2) “Different but Equal” – well… the American Supreme Court had a few things to say about that… 50 years ago. Not tenable. 3) Both can be summarised in Complementarism. A Roman idea (19th century Roman family-fascism) adopted by late 20th… Read more »
Göran:
Your discussion on traditionalism calls to mind a favourite quote from Jaroslav Pelikan:
“Tradition is the living faith of the dead;
traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.”
Robert, on the subject of the Papal Magisterium: By whom was this held at the time of the Papacy-in-Tandem. the Pope in Avignon, or the Pope in Rome? As far as I know, there have never been two Archbishops of Canterbury at one and the same time – although it seems that Bob Duncan is hopeful of beginning that tradition.
Nom de Plume,
And how true it is!
Pace many here, I think everybody should be striking deals. Personally, I am perfectly willing to do deals with FiF (which I think profoundly wrong), just as – in practice – they do deals with me (i.e. they don’t bar me from communion, even though they know I am outrageously liberal, living ‘in sin’, etc. etc.). I realise this requires certain compromises from gays and women priests, but these battles are effectively won and will be seen to be so in time. In the meantime, the C of E (and most of Western Anglicanism and Western Catholicism) is falling to… Read more »
“the Queen is allowed to exercise that particular quality (headship) in the Church of England, which could logically be seen to have a parallel with the priestly role of women’s headship in the ministry of the Church.” Yes. And the Consevo position is an archaic opposition to female headship. My point was that the status of the Queen, while Erastian, does not entail any sacerdotal role. For me, the arguments for and against OOW have been about such a role for women. I don’t think we can reduce Holy Order to the level of COE or some such, regardless of… Read more »