Updated Monday night and Tuesday morning and afternoon
We reported earlier today on the proposal by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York for amendments to the women bishops’ legislation. Press reports and comment are now starting to appear.
Ruth Gledhill in The Times: Archbishops’ compromise deal on women bishops is rejected
Andrew Brown in his blog at The Guardian: Rowan Williams and the mitre maid. The Church of England definitely believes that women may be priests – and that they may not be. Hilarity ensues.
The BBC has Primates in last-ditch move to avert women bishops rift.
Update
Episcopal Life Online: Canterbury, York to propose amendments to women bishops legislation
Forward in Faith UK: FiF reacts to Archbishops’ Statement
Forward in Faith warmly welcomes today’s Statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and now looks forward with great interest to seeing the precise texts of the amendments to the Draft Measure which they will propose to the General Synod next month.
Pluralist Speaks: Two for Tea
Damian Thompson in the Telegraph: The last-ditch plan to keep Anglo-Catholics happy will separate the Anglicans from the Catholics
Paul Handley in the Church Times: Archbishops take a hand in women-bishops debate
Peter, as I am sure you know, The Murdoch papers, including the Times are in the process of going behind a ‘pay wall’. At the moment one can register for a free trial as I have done (though I have to ask why they want my age, address and request my phone number for this) but before long the links from TA to the Times etc will not work unless one is a subscriber. I certainly won’t be subscribing. What will TA be doing?
The spectacle about to play out in the Church of England would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Where is Monty Python when we need him?
The capacity of some Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals to demean women never ceases to amaze me.
Threats to leave should be ignored, of course. The ones who do leave rarely are comfortable when they get to Rome and have a bad habit of coming back.
Well, it’s too bad I can’t read Our Ruth. Times requires registration, which when filled in with info I’d rather not give them but I want to read Ruth, then requires the “word verification” which even when perfectly duplicated is not accepted. Sigh. So can someone who has read Ruth Gledhill tell me if the headline is right? Has the amendment been rejected?
Ruth Gledhill in The Times: Archbishops’ compromise deal on women bishops is rejected
Which is behind a paywall.
Ruth Gledhill in The Times: Archbishops’ compromise deal on women bishops is rejected
Which is behind a paywall.
RPNewark
And I can’t find it in the newspaper ….. is it in today’s edition?
Ruth Gledhill is not behind a paywall – yet – although you do have to register to gain access. If it’s in the printed paper, it will be in Tuesday’s edition.
When the headline to her article says that the compromise has been rejected, what it means is that some people on both sides have expressed doubts about what is apparently being proposed.
Actual rejection is something that only General Synod can do, when it debates and votes on the archbishops’ amendment(s).
Perhpas it’s time for a boycott of male bishops in the CofE. We don’t need their ministry until they recognise the full ministry which exists in other quarters of the Communion.
No confirmations, no ordinations etc. until the masculine hierarchy is brought to its knees!
“Some Anglo-Catholics, who deeply revere Church ceremonies and are close to Roman Catholic practices, believe women are precluded by the Church’s teaching from being priests or bishops, and that appointing them will impair relations with Rome” – BBC Report, on Monday – Well, most of us are already aware of what the Ultra Montane Anglo-Catholics among us think about women’s ordination. But there are other, more liberal, Anglo -Catholics around the Anglican Communion who, just as certainly, do believe otherwise. In view of this fact – and the fact that there are already legitimately ordained women priest in the Church… Read more »
Oh. I can’t read Ruth Gledhill now without paying (or signing up as someone who may be willing to pay at some future date). I’m sure it’s a good column, but I’m not going to read it.
“Since the amendments would not divest the diocesan bishop of any jurisdiction, they would involve no change in the Church of England’s understanding of the episcopate. But for those seeking ministry under this provision from a nominated male bishop, there would no longer be the difficulty that this authority was derived in law from an act of delegation by an individual diocesan.” This sounds to me very much like casuistry – a form of argument more commonly used in a certain (other) jurisdictional Church situation. Casuistry, in the Chambers Dictionary, is described thus: “The science or doctrine of cases concerned… Read more »
This debacle reminds me of the supposed meeting of the Russian Orthodox Synod at the time when the revolution was going on in Russia who were debating the colour of vestments for different seasons. We are on the brink of economic austerity whilst debating the role of women as bishops, how strange.
Yes, Ruth is behind a paywall. No – you don’t have to pay yet. When you do I shall stop reading the Times completely, as I certainly am not paying for Murdoch papers. The headline is misleading. The amendment has not been rejected yet, as Synod has not yet met, but the auguries are not good. My guess is that because it is so intellectually sophisticated a proposal no one has rushed to judgement, after all, we are going to have to spend a day or so working out whether we think it is possible to look in two opposite… Read more »
“Trust the process” is a good mantra. The process includes General Synod testing all the nuances, details and implications of the amendment of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction. For this cannot be accepted merely because it is proposed by 2 archbishops. We should also ask what the process was that led to their proposal. It feels like the Traditional Catholics have been closely involved, partly because the speed of their endorsement indicates prior knowledge, and partly because the amendment focuses yet again on their favourite subject: the foundation of authority. But the Revision Committee which was required to listen patiently and exhaustively to… Read more »
I very much hope this ‘flies’. It should save the bacon of FiF people who don’t want to ‘pope’ (the vast majority, as it becomes increasingly clear). As for liberals, they have to realise you can’t impose uniformity. Most people who engage in these debates seem to me to have the feeblest grasp of the huge diversity of opinion within any Church – and within any church. People have to get on. A single example: I have no doubt (please correct me if I’m wrong) that Fathers Ron and Martin are devout believers in the Virgin Birth, which is –… Read more »
The Bishop of Buckingham has an interesting take on this. “The Spirit has always called the church to a form of ministry that was real within the sociology of the world we serve. Therefore we respond to the Spirit’s call obediently, not half-heartedly. The Puritans used to talk about the “Devil’s Martyrs” — people who lost out all round, because they messed with Mr In-Between, depriving themselves of the advantages of being Puritans, or Libertines. Simply framing the Spirit’s call to ordain women in terms of the problems it raises is boring, weedy and faithless, as well as hypocritical.” See… Read more »
Another very good reason for doing it is that it will administer a well-timed biff on the nose of that frightful old bigot in the Vatican.
A few predictions: 1. Synod will reject the Archbishops’ amendment. 2. When Synod rejects the amendment, whatever Anglican-Catholic ecumenical dialog remains will come to a halt. 3. Various CofE Anglo-Catholics will announce their departure for Roman ordinariates. 4. These announcements will give the Vatican pleasure that it will be unable to disguise, but will give the English Roman hierarchy fits. 5. The Pope’s visit will be a disaster on several levels, because it will illuminate the differences between the Roman Church and the synodical Church of England. The Pope will demonstrate his tin ear, and the Archbishop of Canterbury will… Read more »
john posted “Most people who engage in these debates seem to me to have the feeblest grasp of the huge diversity of opinion within any Church” I’m well aware of the diversity of opinion and the politics it engenders in churches–having worked in one at several levels for nearly four decades. The Virgin birth is a theological construct. Equality of women and men is a civil rights issue. Sadly, despite a wide diversity of opinion in churches on a great many issues, there is little grasp or acceptance of civil and human rights inside organized religions, including Anglicanism as a… Read more »
Rod, I entirely agree that ‘equality etc.’ is a civil rights/justice issue. I am myself 100% in favour of women priests, women bishops, gay priests and gay bishops. I entirely disagree that you can make this disjunction between ‘theological constructs’ and civil rights/justice issues. The ordination of women is in the first instance a theological issue. At some point in the theological debate (rather soon, of course, for ‘liberals’), you can appeal to – I myself would appeal to – ‘justice issues’. But before that you have to consider ‘the authority of the Bible’, Christian tradition, Jesus’ maleness, his disciples’… Read more »
“Simply framing the Spirit’s call to ordain women in terms of the problems it raises is boring, weedy and faithless, as well as hypocritical.” – Bishop Alan’s Blog – This is incontrovertible proof of the intelligence of at least one of the Bishops of the C.of E. Surely what the Holy Spirit is calling forth from the Church of England at this point in its history is to “Be strong and of good courage” – a very Pauline injunction in situations of doubt – where the ministry of women has already proved itself within the Church. To cut this off… Read more »
john posted “I entirely disagree [Rod] that you can make this disjunction between ‘theological constructs’ and civil rights/justice issues. The ordination of women is in the first instance a theological issue.” john, You have hit the nail right on the head. Gender equality must be seen as a human rights issue a priori in this debate. Issues of theology are a posteriori and can only be discussed, and the tradition interpreted for good or ill, positively or negatively, once this is agreed upon. On this turns the whole nature and substance of the debate. We are to respect the dignity… Read more »
John We’re still looking at this one-sidedly. You explain the reasoning for making special provisions and the sad consequences if we don’t. But the idea of making special provisions for people in itself has implications we have not really talked about. It’s not as though the church hadn’t debated this issue theologically for decades, the theology has been done. That it doesn’t convince everyone is, in itself, not enough reason for special provisions. You know that I am deeply torn about special provisions. On the one hand, a tolerant church should of course accommodate those it leaves behind when it… Read more »
“And then we’d seriously wonder how we got there.”
By becoming worshippers of the Zeitgeist, exemplified most clearly on “Rod Gillis'” utterly Erastian posting, and one which would have come just as plausibly 75 years ago from any “Deutsche Christen.”
regarding W. Tighe, “And then we’d seriously wonder how we got there.” followed by “By becoming worshippers of the Zeitgeist, exemplified most clearly on “Rod Gillis'” utterly Erastian posting, and one which would have come just as plausibly 75 years ago from any “Deutsche Christen.” I don’t offer worship to anyone or anything, not even the church, worship goes to God alone. I consider myself a Christian humanist,interested in common ground with other people of faith, and those of good will with none. If the church wants to be taken seriously with regard to public discourse and social morality in… Read more »
Continuing with gender equality, faith, and the quest for human rights, others will be interested in the article below, just out, covering the Summit of World Religions. Note especially the views of General Romeo Dallaire (ret’d) speaking to faith groups out of his experience in Rwanda.
http://www.anglicanjournal.com/nc/news-items/article/2010-world-religions-summit-9250.html
Erika,
I can’t go into this now. I am tired and rather despondent.
john.
John, take heart! There are others amongst us who feel for your situation. To argue with W.T. can be a little exhausting, but Erika seems to have the energy and tenacity. You and I do not. However, I believe that to afford further leeway for dissenters against the ministry of women in the Church – by providing a fire-proof segregation from female clergy – would be a signal that women are not fit to take office in the Church. That, I adamantly oppose.
en Christo. Fr. Ron
John
I hope it wasn’t my reply that made you feel despondent.
Best, Erika
Erika,
No, it wasn’t. Thanks for your concern.
Father Ron,
Your representation of these particular exchanges is naughty. But you know that.
John.
Well just to be very explicit: Recognizing call and ministry among women and men equally, according to call-ministry as we open-endedly and prayerfully discern it together – is not one whit indebted to worshiping the Zeitgeist false idol that Mr. T asserts. From a whole lot of angles, worshipping a males first-males only ideology is what looks distorted and mean and mistaken. As a progressive believer, I run across this idle stuff all the time … utter lies told about progressive change, usually by somebody from a rightwing-conservative religious position who presumes that any and all change is bad. As… Read more »