The Times Ruth Gledhill
Disunity ‘is the cost of women being bishops’
Synod in disinvestment snub to Israel
Also, Ruth’s blog has Church-Israel row looms as synod backs Caterpillar divestment
Telegraph Jonathan Petre
Williams backs bid to disinvest in firms that aid Israeli ‘occupiers’
Cardinal’s warning on women bishops
Guardian Stephen Bates
Church votes to sell off shares in Caterpillar
BBC Robert Pigott
Synod tackles women bishop debate
Today radio programme excerpts (Real Audio)
The spring Synod of the Church of England is attempting to reach a compromise over women bishops. Listen here
The Rt Rev Christopher Hill, Bishop of Guildford, and Dr John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham, on the proposals for a compromise over the issue of women bishops Listen here
Church Times
Monday’s Synod round-up
The debate and the reports of it invite several responses. The first, following the arc of several reports, concerns the position of the Roman Catholic Church. I read their responses with a degree of bewilderment, insofar as their position against female ordination and consecration, is rather rote, devoid of any position other than that eucharist given by any woman bishop or priest ordained by her, would be void. I suppose then the question becomes for them, if there were a Roman Catholic female priest, would the body and blood of the Lord refuse to transubstantiate itself because she had said… Read more »
Ruth Geldhill’s reporting of the disinvestment decision is an absolute disgrace. I would agree with her(though as one who hasn’t heard the arguments made in synod) that it looks like outdated gesture politics, and is unlikely to be remotely helpful to anyone, but Ruth’s biases in focussing on Jewish reaction are seriously one-sided. She has spun this story atrociously, Only on her own blog does she disclose her sympathies for Anglicans for Israel, which is an unashamedly Zionist organisation. It is this kind of abuse of the media that ought to be flagged up on blogs like this.
Quite. I wish she would listen to the views of John Stott on this one. Zionism, particularly its Christian variety, ahould not be something Anglicans offer support to.
RMF wrote, “Will we then hear calls that the Church of England, the mother Church of the Anglican Communion, is thereafter “walking apart” from the Communion and until it repents, must be barred from participation in any of its consultative bodies or processes, including its participation in the Instrument of Unity the Archbishop of Canterbury?”
Heh. Yes, that *would* be an “interesting” synod. You must declare yourselves out of communion with, errr…yourselves! Please desist from walking apart from yourself! ;->
And that surely is why defining ‘Anglican’ as simply “in communion with Canterbury” is so inadequate.
Incidentally, according to the Church of England web site, the See of Canterbury barely gets a look-in when defining what it means to be an Anglican:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/anglican/
Interesting eh?
The bullet points on that web page follow closely the wording of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral which was an output from the Lambeth Conference of 1888 Resolution 11.
Neil B said,
“And that surely is why defining ‘Anglican’ as simply “in communion with Canterbury” is so inadequate.”
Well this isn’t the only element, but Communion with ABC is certainly necessary.