synod, archbishops’ amendments and women bishops
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have today made public their proposed amendments to the recommendations the Revision Committee have drafted for the forthcoming Synod.
AMENDMENTS TO BE PROPOSED BY THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK
1.
We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Revision Committee for their dedicated and painstaking work. We wish, however – after much consideration, and after discussion in the House of Bishops – to offer legislative amendments to the Draft Measure which we believe might provide a way forward for the Church of England….
…The amendments we intend to propose involve neither delegation nor depriving a diocesan of any part of his or her jurisdiction. Instead we seek to give effect to the idea of a ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction….
It’s a carefully worded compromise. Read the rest here…
Damian Thompson of the Telegraph puts it bluntly, saying that the Archbishops are trying to twist the arm of Synod, although he also hopes they will succeed.
Meantime, Jonathan Petrie predicts a bloodbath (this is the Daily Mail, so dial it down a bit as you read):
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York are to make a dramatic intervention in the long-running row over women bishops this week by demanding that opponents of female clergy are not driven out of the Church. Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu are so concerned thousands of traditionalist churchgoers will quit when women become bishops that they are to risk the wrath of liberals by calling for major reforms in Church legislation. Sources said their statement will spell out a legal formula that will give traditionalist clergy and parishes the right to reject the authority of a woman bishop.
The intervention comes before a critical, 15-hour debate at the General Synod in York next month, which insiders are predicting could become a ‘bloodbath’.
Traditionalists, who do not accept that women can be priests or bishops, have been calling for the creation of a ‘his and hers’ Church, in which they cannot be forced to serve under a woman bishop. Liberals say, however, this would unacceptably diminish the status of women bishops because there would be parts of the Church over which they would have no sway.
So far the Synod has only agreed to give traditionalists minimal protection in the form of a code of conduct. The Archbishops want the Church legislation radically amended so that opponents are fully protected in law. They are, however, running the risk that the liberal-dominated Synod, which is made up of nearly 500 bishops, clergy and lay people, will reject the proposals, leaving their authority in tatters.
An insider said: ‘This is a huge moment for the Church. It will determine the shape of things to come. The Archbishops are putting their integrity on the line, but are passionate about keeping the Church together.’
However, a leading supporter of female clergy said: ‘There is a good chance the Synod will reject the Archbishops.
Clearly the Archbishops are seriously worried that they will lose so many conservatives if they simply allow women to be consecrated, straightforwardly, with full authority, that they feel they must intervene. They could be right, of course. On the other hand, they might lose a whole lot of other people if they don’t.
Sometimes the most incisive commentary on this kind of endless proposal/revision/amendment roundabout is the comical send-up. (Remember Dave Walker on the Windsor Report?) Check out Pluralist’s Two for Tea
12 Responses to “synod, archbishops’ amendments and women bishops”
Comments
Pingbacks and Trackbacks
Reply
-
author musician theologian
Maggi has kept a blog since September 2003, writing about theology and faith, the arts and literature, and a little about life and random nonsense...
In an increasingly secularised society few people have a good working knowledge of the Bible. Yet a great deal of our culture is built on stories or ideas that come from the Bible. Literature, art, music, language and even the fabric of our society - such as our justice system - are built on Christian concepts and biblical references. The Writing on the Wall provides a fascinating introduction to the Bible's best-known, and most influential, stories. Each chapter gives some background to the text of the Bible, and shows how the stories have become enmeshed in Western culture. Adam and Eve, the ten plagues of Egypt, The Prodigal Son and Mary Magdalene all feature - along with how the Bible has influenced everyone from Shakespeare to Monty Python, and Caravaggio to Banksy. 
Giving It Up explores the Lenten idea of 'giving up', taking it beyond the traditional idea of simply abstaining from something, and suggesting instead that what we need to give up is our existing ideas about God. With a daily readings for each day of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday, it follows the heroes of the Bible who had to give up their own too-small ideas about God.
This is Maggi’s bestselling book of daily readings for each day of Advent, Christmas and Epiphany. Advent is the beginning of the Church year, and marks the anticipation of the coming Messiah. These readings explore how beginnings and endings in our own lives are illuminated by the different Gospel narratives of Christ's coming.
-
Search
-
-
if there is no unity under the episcopacy then there is no church – its . . . something else, but its not a true ekklesia.
I’m not anglican so I recognise from the start that I might be over-stepping the bounds of politeness here (I apologise in advance), however, I do find this all very puzzling. I don’t get the whole “flying bishops” thing that currently exists for “traditionalists”. It defies the logic of ekklesia to me to have a church within a church, that follows different rules, and has the right to not recognise properly trained, and appointed teachers/ministers of the faith. In every real sense this “sub-section” ought to be recognised for what it is – an autocephalous community.
That being said – if it is going to work anywhere it will work in the CofE because of history – the long standing tension between the more calvinist-reform side of the communion, and the more “catholic” side.
But, sometimes – pruning is necessary, and beneficial.
Weasel words. They say: ‘ We are convinced that the small but significant changes we are proposing …’
If they are small, they are not significant. If they significant that are no small matter. Smoke and mirrors. Where is the clear light of day, the clear light of faith, the clear light of truth?
Either a female bishop is a bishop or she is not. This half-way house approach demeans everyone.
No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. … This is what the CoE has been doing ever since it started to ordain women. The implications of that act were clear then. Ever since it had tried to back track or put the brakes on. Just get on with it!
We have ordained women to the episcopate in Australia for around a year. The world has not fallen apart. There has not been a blood-bath. There have been no odd compromises. Take courage.
Despite being a Baptist I usually have a lot of time for the Archbishops but this time I think they have got it wrong. What they are proposing amounts to 2 classes of bishop: Class 1 = men who are a bishop throughout the CoE and Class 2 = women who can only be a bishop in some places. In any other walk of life this wouldn’t be allowed.
I’m not anglican, and I too may be overstepping the mark, but….
When I worked in local government, if I said to my bosses ’sorry; but my conscience does not allow me to work with women as I regard their work to be inferior to mens and I believe, as a Christian they should be caring for their family’, I would have no expectation that they moved me to another office or guaranteed that I would never have to work with women…..
…rather, after a disciplinary, I would expect to be sacked ….. and perhaps I would not get a reference..
Following on from Hugh – in fact there are male bishops in both classes: the amendment allows clergy to reject their male bishop if he ordains women (or is in favour of doing so). This looks like taint to me….
Charles, What happens if the Archbishops ordain women?
I agree with Charles, that it’s outrageous not only that women are not accepted on equal terms, but that men who do accept them (and have ordained them) are regarded as “tainted” by the women. This does reveal not just a disagreement on order, but a deep-seated misogyny.
my own reading of the historical ordination rites is that basically once your ordained to the deaconate – you’re ordained. Full Stop. Everything on top of that (priesthood, episcopacy) is simply a shift to the side in function of service. So it seems illogical to say that if you are willing to ordain women to the deaconate, that they cannot then be ordained to the priesthood, or the episcopacy. There is no “class” differentiation within the four orders (I say four because I include the laity) if you do so – then you are saying that there is a distinction between “jew” and “greek”, “free-man” and “slave”, “male” and “female” in Christ – and of course as we all know this is totally counter to the teaching we have received.
But again, I’m not an Anglican – so I could very well be missing something in your tradition or history that affects this “exegetical” exercise (grin).