BBC Women bishops: Church’s General Synod delays vote
Jerome Taylor in The Independent Church backs away from women bishops debate
Lizzy Davies in The Guardian Church of England postpones vote on female bishops
Ed Thornton, Gavin Drake and Madeleine Davies in the Church Times Synod postpones final decision on women bishops
In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s contribution to this morning’s debate is now online, both as an audio recording and a transcript.
Now we shall see whether or not the House of Bishops have indeed had their backbones removed at their consecrations.
Per the BBC: “But the amendment went further, specifying that the stand-in bishop should exercise their ministry in accordance with the parish’s opinions on the issue.”
Amazing! Not only do they want noting to do with a woman bishop, they want to be able to tell whatever bishop they get what to do and what to believe.
Why not just become congrationalists?
Why isn’t the provision symmetrical? If one were in a diocese where the bishop does not believe in the ordination of women,will one be able to ask for the provision of alternative episcopal oversight from a woman bishop?
I signed the WATCH petition on this, but find myself thinking that maybe the Bishops were right.
It’s not just a male bishop some require, but a male bishop ordained by male bishops (i.e. exercising “their ministry in accordance with the parish’s opinions on the issue.”) If we are serious about accommodating them we must do it properly, even at the expense of bishops having to carry pedigree cards. If that’s what the bishops meant, it would have helped if they said so more clearly.
Deacon Charlie makes a very good point. The unhealthy and immoral position that women can’t be bishops has absolutely no theological “backbone” to support such a position. It is both a political argument and a misogynistic argument.
Are there any compelling biblical or theological reasons left as to why gender should override catholic ecclesiology? No–this has been argued for years. We are almost to the point of “no women, no bishops”, which is a sorry state for the church of Reformed catholicity and the historical episcopate. I wonder if many feel their own ordination is provisional somehow in relation to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, and if so, they are not capable of leading the church of Cranmer or Hooker.
Ian “It’s not just a male bishop some require, but a male bishop ordained by male bishops (i.e. exercising “their ministry in accordance with the parish’s opinions on the issue.”)” WATCH have no problem with this. The bishop’s amendment goes further, though, and will give parishes the right to reject a male bishop ordained by a male bishop if he happens to approve of women priest and if he ordains them. That’s what it means to share the parish’s opinion. The bishop must not only be validly ordained and consecrated, he must also be right thinking. That’s what “taint” is… Read more »
As someone in the chamber during the debate, can i just make a couple of observations? Firstly, there has to be more to the provision of another bishop other than maleness, otherwise the legislation makes no sense; a male bishop would be forced to delegate to another male bishop! aS for Chris Smith’s comment, i find it hurtful and unchristian, We may disagree with our brothers and sisters, but this language does no good. Also, just because he doesn’t agree with the theological position of opponents, doesn’t make it ” no theological backbone” One more thing. If it were congregationalism… Read more »
“Also, just because he doesn’t agree with the theological position of opponents, doesn’t make it ” no theological backbone” I believe Chris’ point was that there _is_ no “theological position” to dignify sexism. I have yet to see anything from apologists for a male priesthood to convince me otherwise, and certainly not to reconcile their opinion with Chalcedonian christology. You may protest that it is mean of Chris to expect people to have reasons for making the claims they do – and I realize in this postmodern era the “right to my opinion” reigns supreme and any attempt to submit… Read more »
Thanks Erica. I had not read taint into it – but I think you are right that it is still there. In fact, any ‘theological convictions’ about women’s ministry seem acceptable to the legislation, but maleness and taint are those with precedent. In which case, the problem is not this legislation, but the problems created by the introduction of the flying bishops.