Here are some more opinions on General Synod’s decision not to approve the legislation on women bishops, and transcripts of some of the speeches made in the debate.
Paul Vallely How a recalcitrant minority stopped the Church from entering the 20th let alone the 21st century
Jane Tillier Ekklesia Rejecting women bishops harms the church’s mission
Fulcrum Statement on the Decision of General Synod not to approve the legislation on Women Bishops
Sarah Coakley at ABC Religion and Ethics Has the Church of England finally lost its reason? Women bishops and the collapse of Anglican theology
John Gladwin Some reflections on the November 20th Vote
Nick Baines Get real
Jeremy Fletcher Women Bishops – After Tuesday
Kevin Lewis man boobs
Benny Hazlehurst Two feet in the grave…
Lesley Crawley I would like General Synod to pass a policy denouncing sexism
Justin Brett What now, then?
Sam Wells Response to Women Bishops Vote
Tom Wright Women Bishops: It’s about the Bible, not fake ideas of progress
Some of the speeches made to General Synod
Elaine Storkey
Philip Giddings
Tom Sutcliffe
Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham
James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool
Tom Wright bristles at Mr Cameron’s injunction to the C of E to ‘get with the programme’, arguing that the church should not pay any need to discourses that come from outside the world of scripture. However, it would have been nice if the C of E had at least been able to get with its own programme of moving to appoint women as bishops! But a government also has the right to judge whether the fundamental ethical priciples of an established church are consonant with those of the wider nation, and if they are not, to say so. Previous… Read more »
John Gladwin’s comments – absolutely. No more mish-mash.
Whilst Dr Wright’s article is characteristically cogent and forceful, I find the logic of his argument depressingly circular. The Fulcrum site strikes me as being an hermetic echo chamber for this sort of stuff, and a profoundly alienating one at that. He makes the tendentious (and mildly nauseating) connection between Nazism, Stalinism, progress and the consecration of women bishops. He suggests that Erastianism might be “angrily resisted if it attempted to block reform” – whereas what he is actually saying is that it should be resisted angrily because of the suggestion by Messrs Bryant, Field, etc., that reform should be… Read more »
I have searched in vain to find what used to be called “respect” for those with whom he disagrees in what might be called John Gladwin’s final solution.
If the Church of England were to be legally disestablished, one wonders, would that be such a bad thing. This Church is the only Province of the Anglican Communion that derives its constitution from the secular realm. This is not to say that the Monarch is not a ‘good’ Anglican. Her Majesty has proved her loyalty to the Church by her upholding of its distinctive traditional roots in the Catholic/Reformed and Evangelical tradition. However, there is more than the monarchy involved in this matter. The Government is also involved! Where matters of common human justice, such as the equality of… Read more »
Fr David – perhaps the “respect” that you are looking for is present in the form of self respect. Those who have compromised repeatedly to keep people ‘on board’ may finally have decided that no compromise beyond making provision for a parallel church, which holds the brand name, will suffice for those who are opposed to the admission of women to the episcopate. (Or as Reform would have it ‘headship’.) So Bishop Gladwin (please note the respectful term of address) has decided that any further concessions render female bishops untenable. There is also talk of a Reconcilliation Movement, rather like… Read more »
Tell you what Father David, I respect the people and abhor their opinions. I love the sinner and hate the sin. I do not have to respect all opinions.
Fr David
I would agree with you. There has been a widespread loss of respect for those who are responsible for Tuesday’s fiasco.
It’s sad but it is undeniably (and predictably) true.
The landscape for this debate has now changed.
David – don ‘t you dare use the expression’final solution’ like that. Just don’t do it, it is an appalling reference to purport to confect.
Fr David
It is hard to respect those who do not respect the views of their diocesan synods nor the views of their Bishops, despite their avowed emphasis on the importance of headship. Of course I should respect my fellow christians; but it is difficult.
I once sat and listened to the speeches at an annual meeting of FiF, there wasn’t the slightest vestige of respect shown to women priests and their supporters.
A priest I had previously respected hugely, sneered at the bishops of Wales, saying that they were no bishops at all.
The “get that bitch out of my sanctuary” attitude made famous by John Hughes when he was bishop of Kensington seems endemic. Respect needs to be a two way street and I see the failure of respect was a required element at FiF conference.
It’s the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury, for whom I have the greatest respect, that I feel greatest sorrow for. What a legacy – a deeply divided Anglican Communion and a national Church in turmoil and chaos.
Erika,
Don’t understand you. Why, precisely, was it a ‘fiasco’? The attitude of my fellow-liberals to Tuesday’s vote seems to me deeply Stalinist. I really do not respect this crude ‘end-justifies-the means’ presumptiveness.
Are members of General Synod expected to vote according to their own conscience, or are their votes supposed to somehow reflect the will of the people who elected them? Also, has it been determined what percentage of those voting no did so because it didn’t go far enough to protect the minority and what percentage did so because it went too far?
David –
feel sorriest for Rowan? No – it is all the thousands of women clergy who have put up and shut up for 19 years I feel sorriest for. That vote was the biggest slap in the face for them and their ministry imaginable.
John,
it is “Stalinist” to feel that a vote that ends in the defeat of a draft Measure that was the clear wish of all but a small minority of Laity is a fiasco?
Stalin can’t have been all that bad, then.
John, the vote was a fiasco because the antis and well meaning but completely unrealistic people like you genuinely seemed to believe that there is another compromise just round the corner. I listened to most of the debate live and I could not believe how many said breezily that an alternative could be found. The impression was that the draft Measure could be voted down and that everyone would then meet up for a nice cup of tea and discuss Plan B. This is wishful thinking of the highest order. Did no-one listen to the Bishop of Manchester who in… Read more »
I was under the impression that the complex voting requirements – super majorities in each house – was a way of protecting against the tyrany of the majority; the vote didnt come out the way many wanted, but claiming that the system did anything but work as designed seems wrong-headed. If Synod members were required to reflect the votes of their dioceses, then why not have the diocesan votes settle the matter in the first place? Why bother with the Synod vote at all? The problem (if there is a problem) is not with those who had the temerity to… Read more »