Forward in Faith has published TEA – a further examination which contains the report of the Forward in Faith Legal Working Party on the Guildford Group report GS 1605. The report lists nine numbered paragraphs containing what the working party considers to be fundamental defects of TEA, and then continues with a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the report.
Earlier, FiF had published TEA – an interim commentary.
Dopesn’t appear to be very favourable, does it?
Personally, I think its yet another unacceptable compromise – a one clause measure would have sufficed.
And once again, discrimination is excused on the spurious grounds of ‘unity’, yet still isn’t good enough for them. So they may leave anyway! And the result is the continuation of institutionalised discrimination for nothing.
Looks to me as though they’re going the right way to lose any kind of support at all in HoB and Synod! Either they can’t read the runes, or they think that going for broke is the only political approach credible to their constituency. Wouldn’t get my support, I’m afraid, and I’ve been nice to them so far… TEA is quite a long way down the line in terms of compromise, but FiF seem to be so obsessed with what they call “sacramental assurance” (which is an RC doctrine, not an Anglican one) that they need even the Synods and… Read more »
I thought it was very interesting that they made an appeal to the new Nigerian relationship to the ABC as a model for the new provice’s own relationship. This appeal seems to elevate that relation definition as an important new precedent–what are the potential implications?
Interestingly everything Pete says would be applicable to Akinola and his evangelical confreres and sisters in the CofE and appropriate to loads of the other postings on this blog!
My way or else ;=)
TEA was dead in the water. FiF has not changed its position from day one, and it might have been a good idea to consult with them, or at least read Consecrated Women properly, before wasting time on proposals which were never going to be acceptable.
How very kind of Bishop Broadbent to be nice to them!
My local FiF parish made it clear, at a service I was at just after their rally, that they would not leave the Church of England whatever happened. They (that is, my local parish) will take the best deal they can. I suspect they are not alone, because the real hardliners left when women were ordained to the priesthood. The FiF response doesn’t clearly distinguish the wood from the trees. It’s a document buried in detail, dictated by its paragraph-by-paragraph approach, which is exactly what I would expect in a detailed negotiation. It is not what I would expect if… Read more »
If TEA is dead in the water, then we are back to the one cause measure – and I hardly think that this is FIF’s intention. The comparison with Akinola et al is valid. In both cases, what we have is the ‘reasonable majority’ saying “let’s stay together and work things out even if it gets a bit messy” and then we have the ‘hardliners’ saying “not one iota of compromise – it’s our way or no way”. In both cases, the almost inevitable outcome is going to be schism. The ‘hardliners’ paint themselves into a corner whereby even a… Read more »
In response to the Bishop of Willesden, there was a huge debate in the Restoration Church in the 1660s about whether ministers ordained under the Cromwellian Regime could be allowed to continue in post if they were not re-ordained by an bishop in the apostolic succession (obviously their concept of this succession was slightly different but it doesn’t alter the point). Ultimately, it was over fear of validity of sacraments that led the Church of England authorities officially to remove all of those ministers not episcopally ordained. Sacramental Assurance was as C of E then, as it is now so… Read more »
David, you could join the Downing Street SPIN office.
Since when has the traditional position on either sexuality or women’s ordination been “hardline” or an “unreasonable”?
Again, “I do not think that there is any compromise position.”
THAT is hardline. THAT is unreasonable.
Frankly this looks like yet another episode of Anglo-Catholic congregationalism, dressed up as catholic sensitivities. The group basically acknowledges this in noting that their proposal would be unlike the Church in Wales in not being geographically defined, rather the province’s “geographical identity would change as parishes entered or left the new province”. This proposal exercises the logic of Prebyterianism. How many people are aware that there was schism in the Presbyterian Church (certainly in Victoria, Australia) over the introduction of organs, choirs, set forms of services and eventually, womens’ ordination (which has since been revoked as a way of distancing… Read more »
As an insider, I am certain that most Traditionalists will accept TEA provided that it is strengthened sufficently to give real jurisdiction to the PRB. All that most Traditionalists want is for a legally assured place in the CofE that will allow them to get on with the work of sharing the Catholic Faith with the people of England. But it must be a long term solution so that our children and granchildren can go on to enjoy the fullness of the Catholic Faith within the CofE. Anything which smacks of being temporary or of only offering terminal care will… Read more »
I don’t think it is possible to set up a permanent two-tier church.
It wouold be a scandal not only to the world.
kleranc said “while the argument they are currently putting up involves a travesty of catholic theology”…. I wonder if he has read the views of the Roman Catholic Church in the comments they produced for the Synod debate? For if he is right, they are guilty of the same.