synod, jeffrey john and women bishops
There’s plenty of reporting on the upcoming synod debate(s).
The Guardian’s CiF Belief had two posts this week, both of which drew a surprisingly low number of comments – the page is usually fought over pretty energetically by very keen commenters. Ed Tomlinson unsurprisingly commented on those who will/might go to Rome if women are admitted to the episcopate, which the Guardian headlined: “An Anglican considering going to Rome says, keep your women bishops, and… give us the money and buildings we need…”
If you’re in a muddle about what all these debates, revisions, amendments and the like are for, and what they mean in plain english, the best summary I’ve seen is here, and if you want to read all the papers etc in fine detail, Thinking Anglicans has all the links and commentary.
The flurry of press and blogs about the leak on Jeffrey John being on the shortlist for Southwark and then off it again is, of course, a separate issue, but whether the proximity of the rows was deliberate, predictable or merely unfortunate, it has certainly created the opportunity for a number of people to criticise Dr Williams, who – given that he has opted for the unity of the Church as his top priority – seems doomed to displease everyone no matter what he does. Ruthie G apparently (behind her paywall) reported that the ABC lost his temper over leaks on this story. I’m only surprised he hasn’t done before. But Pete Broadbent has been tweeting and commenting here and there, taking the longer view and defending both the ABC’s decisions and the CNC process.
WATCH and most other supporters of women in the episcopacy have been dismayed by the Arhbishops of Canterbury and York’s proposed amendments to the draft, and are hoping that Synod will not agree with them, although many people have also noted that although Synod can disagree with its leaders, it’s difficult and unusual for them to do so.
It’s not just that those women who might become Bishops would have their opportunity delayed or their ministry and gifts limited; it’s not just that the CHurch as a whole will be diminished if these gifted women are once again put into the Green room; it’s the fact that among the thousands of women clergy, and thousands more lay people who want to live in a Church that treats all people in equality, are genuinely considering leaving the Church of England if this is fudged again. The opponents of women Bishops will, we are told, leave anyway. If both supporters and opponents are going to walk, what on earth would be the point of agreeing to another fudge that offers second-class episcopates to women? It won’t produce unity. It would be so much better to make a clean decision than to prolong the toxicity.
Kelvin Holdsworth comments from north of the border:
we are also being treated to a commentary on Rowan William’s temper and the suggestion that he personally vetoed Jeffrey John’s nomination. I don’t even know whether that is possible. In any case, I’d prefer not to believe it, I think. It was bad enough that +Rowan laid down his friend for his life the first time around when Jeffrey was nominated to be suffragen bishop of Reading. If he really has become someone who would lay down the same friend for his life twice, it is too ghastly to contemplate for long.
Now, its straight off to General Synod for the Archbishop, where he is sponsoring an amendment to the measure allowing women to be nominated for the Episcopate which would make them second-class bishops forever.
I hope the English Synod says no to this and does so clearly and decisively.
I hope so too. But I’m also checking out alternative options in case they don’t.
12 Responses to “synod, jeffrey john 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
-
-
One option , in terms of considering your options – come to NZ
[winking]. The life style is great
Just a small observation, but people thinking about leaving the Church if the vote goes against women bishops cannot be an argument either way if people are also thinking about leaving the Church if the vote goes for women bishops – not, that is, unless we think one group would be the ‘right’ people to have leave and the other group would be the ‘wrong’ people to have leave.
Maybe both groups could leave the Church?
I don’t believe, John, that the threat of anyone leaving is (or should be) in itself the rationale for either argument. It is likely to be a result for some people, though, and the point as I see it is that a fudge which will make those opposing women leave, and make women leave too, is no kind of a solution. Better to make a clear decision in favour of one view or the other, and then people can go or stay with integrity, knowing what the church actually is standing for. If everyone leaves, that would be the worst of all possible worlds.
Myself, I pray (only half kiddingly) that the Episcopal Church will set up shop here in Australia. Maybe they should also set up a European diocese in the UK…
I hope women Bishops come to pass, in order that Gospel values are reflected more fully in the structures of the Church.
Homosexual bishops are a different matter. I’m sorry Revd John had to be caught in the crossfire, but St Paul didn’t extend his Greek or Jew, free or slave, man or woman to sexual lifestyle choices, and we need to fight diversity-advocates whose real goal is to deliver England to the hands of atheists.
You’ve made me think, Maggi. Can I stay in a church that treats women as second-class?
maggi and jen
in one sense, as an ordinand in the c of e, regardless of what synod do, i’ve already made my decision to go into a church that treats women as less human than men – that is not a light decision, but it is my choice, God asked me, i said ‘yes’.
however, and maggi knows this very well
, i find myself developing what i consider to be a healthy disrespect for an institution that i also love – i think this is a good balance, i’m not a goad kicker for the sake of it, but i won’t sit around happy to be kicked either.
maybe one day God will ask me to go somewhere else, but not now, for me anyway, and it may be that that is being asked of some wonderful faithful people now and we will suffer, but perhaps that is how it must be.
i hope that i will always be able to hear God’s voice whether it’s to stay or go, and have courage to obey.
Ed, every wonder if maybe … just maybe … the diversity-advocates are just that … advocating diversity instead of atheism? Maybe they could be even advocating Christianity by including a witness to those who deny God’s very existence.
You know there’s plenty of Bible based evidence that we should discriminate against lefties as well. Being on the left hand of God and all. It really is an apt analogy, I even had a primary school teacher who tried to make me use my right hand as the other was the “devil’s” hand.
Would you fight to exclude lefties, divorcees, sea food aficionados, or wearers of mixed fiber clothing too? Do you believe the Bible’s teachings on slavery? Or is there something particular about homosexuals that deserves your specific ire. If so, please enlighten the rest of us, Ed. I really am interested to know what about this particular class of people makes people so passionate.
Kelvin Holdsworth’s point of view can’t surely be that the old school tie is a good thing, i.e. one is obliged to show nepotism and/or promote friends, and there must be something wrong if one doesn’t. The old school tie (and discrimination whether positive or negative)is not a good thing.
James, thank you for reminding me of Steve Chalke’s rather sinister analysis of How the Jews Got it Wrong.
I am not anti-homosexual, merely suspicious of the cadre of activists – many of whom are straight – who wish us to stop celebrating heterosexual marriage, honouring our war dead, protecting our country from terrorists – or celebrating the religion of our established church – etc, on the conceit that somebody may be offended. Was I dreaming, or did we vote that way of seeing things out recently?
I refer you to the recent Rainbow Sash activists’ campaign to receive Holy Communion at the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral recently. It suited their purposes to redefine receiving Communion as a right rather than a privelege, which goes against the theology of all major churches that I am aware of. (BTW, nobody bothered turning up with a rainbow sash.)