Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the failure of the Archbishops’ amendment
July 10th, 2010
The debate in synod is not about gender equality. It is about the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. Most have accepted that there will be women bishops in the Church of England.
The problem the Archbishops were trying to address was trying to address was the problem of monoepiscopacy, the belief that only one bishop can have jurisdiction in one geographical area. Synod had two objectives:
i) To affirm that all bishops would be of equal status and
ii) To enable those who, on grounds of scripture and theology, cannot accept women as bishops, to continue to flourish within the Church of England without diminishing the status of women bishops.So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place.
Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden
I commented on the “problem of monoepiscopacy” business under your last Anglican Mainstream post. Seems the evangelical ultras and maybe the Jensenites (is there a difference?), have a new toy.
I don’t recall monoepiscopacy ever being a problem in the history of Christendom until it was important to deny women authority. However, perhaps this is a new ecumenical moment to acknowledge multiple bishops within a single diocese?
Rebecca
Well, it seems to have been a pretty live issue a couple of thousand years ago, but after that everyone settled down with it.
And it presumably would have stayed settled until Anglican Mainstream, and others of that ilk, seized upon it as a means of rejecting women priests in general, and women bishops in particular.
Naturally these deeply traditionalist members of the church are perfectly happy to overturn the tradition of a couple of millennia…
“So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place”.
Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden
Meanwhile, the world waits upon Philip and Chris’s symposium to determine what the oxymoronically named ‘Mainstream’ people might come up with. It must be controversial, otherwise they wouldn’t be bothered.
Having read Dr. Sugden’s article at Anglican Mainstream on “mono-episcopacy,” I’m struck at what appears to be an entirely too convenient mis-remembering of our history. Yes, there have been times in the pre- and Roman Imperial church when there was more than one bishop served in a territory – but one of those bishops was clearly outside the catholic orthodox tradition. Sure, there were Athanasian and Arian bishops at the same time, and Catholic and Nestorian bishops at the same time; but they were hardly “flourishing” in the same church. Of course, that’s really the undercurrent in most of the… Read more »
“The debate in synod is not about gender equality.”
Bollocks.
Messrs Giddings and Sugden
It is not possible both to have and not to have women in the episcopate.
One thing or the other.
However, what about this :-
‘… the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. ‘
‘Most have accepted’ that minsiters includng bishops, can be, and are and will be gay.
Get over it — all of it.
“Mono-episcopacy” – surely we don’t have that in the c of E even now. Service Chaplains for instance are licenced to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops to the forces have ministry over the whole country.
I discovered some years ago that my diocesan didn’t know that. Perhaps the rest of General Synod need a little legal education in the matter.
In any case “Holy Order” isn’t about power or status but about pernission to ministry, a point missed by the critics.