The Church Times carries this news report of its own interview with the archbishop: No ‘chucking out’ over women.
The actual interview with Ed Thornton is available in full here: ‘You don’t have to agree to be in the same Church’.
Anglican Mainstream has published this: Primates of Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan and Southern Cone write to Archbishop Welby.
Today’s Guardian has this editorial: Archbishop of Canterbury: good and God.
At the Telegraph Damian Thompson writes on his blog The new Archbishop of Canterbury, enthroned today, must wish the gay issue would go away. But it won’t.
Colin Coward wrote at Changing Attitude Justin Welby speaks of stunning quality of gay relationships.
“It’s just not Christian. It’s not what we do. We’re bound together by a common baptism through the work of the Holy Spirit, and I don’t think we should have the liberty of saying to people: ‘This is how it’s going to be, and that’s just too bad if you don’t like it.'” -ABC This statement is a mine of contradictions, non-sequiturs, and unctuous clerical baffle-gab. We may be bound by a common baptism, but some of the baptized (males) are more equal than others (females). If women can be baptized then they can be made bishops. But that’s not… Read more »
Regarding what is ‘Christian’; one wonders what our new Archbishop thinks about the prospect of allowing structural discrimination against women who, eventually, may be made Bishops in his Church?
“This statement is a mine of contradictions, non sequiturs . . . .” Rod Gillis. It’s only that in your view, Mr Gillis, because you disagree with it!
“and I don’t think we should have the liberty of saying to people: ‘This is how it’s going to be, and that’s just too bad if you don’t like it.'”
which is exactly what they’re saying to women and lgbt people at the moment.
Re Benedict, yes I certainly do disagree with the Archbishop’s statement, and I disagree with the same old tired and ineffective pastoral and political strategy behind it. I think I have also pointed out, successfully, the non-sequiturs and the contradictions. We are indeed bound by one Lord, one faith, one baptism, but that does not obviate the systemic ingrained discrimination by one group of the baptized over against another. That there is truly neither male nor female does not necessarily follow in practice–quite the opposite. The statement contradicts itself by claiming to champion unity based on inclusion with the tacit… Read more »
>> “This statement is a mine of contradictions, non sequiturs . . . .” Rod Gillis. It’s only that in your view, Mr Gillis, because you disagree with it! << Actually, Benedict, it is a mine of contradictions, non sequiturs, etc. simply because it *is* a mine of contradictions, non sequiturs, etc., Mr Gillis’ views wholly aside. Let’s take, for example, just the most obvious contradiction: “…I don’t think we should have the liberty of saying to people: ‘This is how it’s going to be, and that’s just too bad if you don’t like it.'” Well, actually, the way things… Read more »
I have posted some thoughts at http://modernchurchblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/what-to-say-to-justin-welby.html
The statement is short-hand. It contains a number of unexpressed conditions. Everybody here knows this (though some profess not to). I agree with the statement, thus understood. I am glad that the new ABP, fervent supporter of women priests and women bishop as he is, still wants to make space for those who (in good conscience, etc.) do not accept them/have difficulty with them. I am glad that such people for their part still want to stay with us. Glad.
Thank you, John. I for one want to stay! The CofE is my home and I know I belong here. The Archbishop’s words give me hope.
Re John “The statement is short-hand. It contains a number of unexpressed conditions. Everybody here knows this (though some profess not to)” A rather curious statement. An unexpressed condition, in fact, is essentially a tacit assumption. Here the tacit assumption, as noted previously, is the status quo of male privilege over gender equality, a question of who must be kept in the fold at virtually all costs, and who must wait for qualified acceptance.Its a mantra that has made gender equality more, not less, difficult for the church. There is no dispute over Archbishop Welby’s favoring women bishops–although as an… Read more »
Over all the arguments to allow dissentients the privilege of disenfranchising future women bishops, perhaps the strongest opposition to this is based on the fact that the sin of ‘discrimination against women’ is involved. Does the Church of England want that to be part of our celebrated ‘Unity’?
What sort of ‘Unity’ is it we are trying so desperately to preserve? Is it institutionalised discrimination? If so, that’s not very Christian.
Isn’t it essential to acknowledge that the debate is rather more nuanced than the comments so far suggest? It is not a simple binary choice between men who are against the consecration of women and women who are in favour. It is quite clear that a lot of women are against being obliged to accept a female bishop. Nor is it right to speak of “women” as the “victims” of the current debates who are waiting and tolerating discrimination in the CofE-again lots of women are supportive of the status quo. Nor is it right to say as a generalisation… Read more »
Re johhny “As a man I am certainly not willing to judge women opposed to female bishops as somehow less entitled to their view than other women and I am surprised that other men are willing to condemn them.” This is red herring. One of the implications of gender equality is that women are equally entitled to a viewpoint and equally entitled to have said view challenged by either men or women. Women who do not feel called to an ordained office in the church are not required to seek one. However, patriarchy, like all systemic forms of oppression, is… Read more »
“lots of women are supportive of the status quo.”
Lots? Really? If the anti-women, pro-discrimination crowd is even 25 percent, and half are women, that’s 12.5 percent. That is not typically considered “lots.” And not usually enough to drive policy.
Cynthia, thank you as ever for your response- it is most interesting. Given the voting in both the English dioceses and in Synod I suspect your 12.5% is a bit low. Nonetheless, 12.5% of the regular attenders of the CofE is equivalent to around 125,000 women. As I understand it, 125,000 women is more than the total number of women in the TEC (assuming that TEC has retained equal membership of men and women). Might I take it therefore that you think that on the basis that 125,000 is not “lots” the entire female composition of the TEC, including (sadly)yourself… Read more »
Jonathan Clatworthy has posted a comment on the Church Times interview here:
http://modernchurchblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/who-gets-ignored.html
Re johnny, from a math point of view you may wish to brush up on the use of statistical data; but from a political point of view, the premise of your position is a divide and conquer strategy, similar to the culture wars approach we are familiar with here in Canadian politics.