Sunday, February 10, 2013

Women in the House of Bishops? Let them vote by proxy


From Brother Ivo:

The House of Bishops has taken a first step towards admitting a feminine perspective directly into its deliberations by a decision to invite eight women, elected on a regional basis from the Bishops’ senior staff teams, to attend its meetings as non-voting members. According to the Guardian, this has been welcomed by those representing the majority position within the CofE who seek an unqualified ‘seat at the top table’ for any suitably qualified person regardless of gender.

It is hoped by such people that this approach will inject a little oestrogen into the room and that this will fundamentally change the nature of what has already been termed ‘a boys club’. They also hope that the gradual nature of the change, falling short of acceding full voting rights, will prove a necessary but persuasive transition period.

One should never underestimate the value of developing cordial inter-personal relations. The Anglo-Irish Peace Agreement may have had its flaws and its critics, but few would deny that such progress as was made was founded on the human interactions between its participants. Few who saw it at the time forget the startlingly jokey, relaxed concluding press conference at which Ian Paisley, Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams spoke publicly together for the first time.

Pleasing as this Episcopal development sounds, does it truly have the capacity to change hearts, minds, or votes?

I doubt it; it is preaching to the converted.

The House of Bishops voted overwhelmingly in favour of women bishops. It is hard to see how much more convinced they can become. So, while the internal ambience of the House of Bishops may well be improved by this initiative, and perhaps some new and useful hard truths will be heard, it is not within this benign environment that the matter will be advanced.

But it could be.

The outstanding opposition to women priests and bishops lies in the House of Laity and relies principally upon two linked doctrines, expressed in different ways.

Some, principally Anglo-Catholics, have an ongoing anxiety about ‘sacramental assurance’, whilst objectors of the more US-influenced Evangelical persuasion are troubled by women bishops undermining their doctrine of ‘Headship’, which is also sometimes described with reference to ‘Complementarianism’.

Brother Ivo does not share these opinions but has no desire to accidentally misrepresent, still less traduce them, so he offers to those unfamiliar with the concepts the following links for background information.

The Bishop of Liverpool used to agree with Headship but does not now, and HERE briefly are his reasons. These doctrines exist within parts of the Anglican Communion, but neither feature in the XXXIX Articles, nor are they currently officially recognised doctrines. Headship theology may have its place in the gathered congregations of Free Churches, but it is not in its natural habitat within the State Church whose history of continuous doctrine is currently bracketed by the two Supreme Governors Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II.

At the last Synod when the vote for women priests was lost by just 6 votes in the House of Laity, the final speech in opposition was presented by the Rev Angus Macleay of St Nicholas Church, Sevenoaks. His address has been described as ‘The Speech that Sealed The Vote, and is available HERE. His application of the ‘Headship’ principle earned some notoriety in 2010 when he issued a leaflet in his parish offering advice on how these ideas apply within normal married life.

Having read the objections to women's ministry presented in that way, together with his approach to marital governance in general, one thing is clear: hell will freeze over before he and those holding such views – and the few necessary votes in the General Synod – change their minds and accept any form of female authority anywhere near them or the congregations over which they have authority.

There is no magic compromise. Sadly, the Anglican Church cannot hold together asserting ‘Headship’ at the same time as affirming the full, valid, and undifferentiated ministry of male and female.

Having a handful of women deans, archdeacons or advisors around the table to share the tea and biscuits will not change the dynamic in those parts of the Church where it matters most. But one thing could make a difference.

Imagine the effect if eight (or more) bishops decided to break the deadlock and pledged themselves to vote exclusively as directed by their female colleagues until such time as women are authorised to enjoy a full and unencumbered status in the Church, in their own right. Female judgment and authority will have been exercised, albeit by proxy, but unconditionally nevertheless, and effectively, and on a real, practical and repeated basis. The ‘Headship’ issue would thereby be brought swiftly to a head.

While the debate might continue to remain technically stuck in the synodical quagmire, women would be exercising de facto if not de jure authority in the House of Bishops. Some offended by the exercise of that authority might feel obliged to leave early, although it might be unsafe to assume that this will necessarily happen. It would, however, take an award-winning decree of casuistry and chutzpah to remain, seeking to exercise a blocking vote against regularising that which is already happening.

It's not a pretty solution, but it is a solution which could be brought about by a few brave men exercising Headship and turning their backs on the current impotence of imaginary solutions.

(Posted by Brother Ivo)

163 Comments:

Blogger Albert said...

Some offended by the exercise of that authority might feel obliged to leave early, although it might be unsafe to assume that this will necessarily happen.

You are so flippant about people leaving. That you see it this way, shows clearly that you do not see the CofE as either the Church of this land or the Catholic Church of this land. Are you really Anglican?

Personally, if Anglicans are serious about moving forward on this, they will need to read carefully the CofE's report on it.

10 February 2013 10:10  
Blogger Martin said...

One wonders whether the Bishop of Liverpool holds to a Calvinistic view of salvation, since that is clearly taught in the 39 Articles. But, of course, the 39 Articles are not the final authority, nor is tradition, the Bible is the final authority. In the day when the 39 Articles were penned there was no thought for women 'bishops' or even women clergy (there is no such thing as an office of priest in the Christian Church), indeed the Reformers were clear that women were not to have authority since that was the sin of Eve and clearly forbidden in 1Ti 2:11-15. Those women who claim they have such a leadership calling are repeating that sin of Eve.

10 February 2013 10:25  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sigh.


I'm one who'll leave.

10 February 2013 11:15  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: it'll be interesting to see how many of the leavers will be women. Those of us who do not seek power tend to a dispassionate view of females who do: we know the latter really are "more deadly than the male."

Except for feminised men, of course!

10 February 2013 11:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Brother Ivo

Sadly...

You don't actually seem sad at all. I admit it's somewhat refreshing to hear views long hidden expressed in such a forthright manner, but your 'sadness' manifests itself as: "The door is behind you. Don't let it hit you on the way out." And this to people whose only crime is to believe what the church has always taught - until about 30 years ago when a bunch of moderns concluded they were ever so much smarter than everyone else gone before.

...the Anglican Church cannot hold together asserting ‘Headship’ at the same time as affirming the full, valid, and undifferentiated ministry of male and female.

It certainly cannot do so within one authority structure. And why is one authority structure so important? Your 'broad church' solution was to allow private individuals to believe whatever they like even as you strip them of leadership and remove any vestige of their offending doctrines from the teaching and practice of the CoE. Which isn't in fact a 'broad church' solution at all. It's the mirror image of what you are opposing.

The CoE may be broad enough to encompass atheist priests, but we discover it cannot encompass complementarians. The former subject of course deals with nothing but esoteric doctrines and who is there brave enough to put a window into another man's soul? But we are talking about who gets to exercise authority in the church. Now, there is a subject you can get your arms around.

It's a good thing that complementarians can find a home in the Free Churches because those are the only churches that will still be standing in a generation.

carl

10 February 2013 12:56  
Blogger JW said...

"insert a little oestrogen"

Seriously?

And all this time I had been thinking that what was needed amongst the bishops was a little testosterone...

10 February 2013 13:08  
Blogger Flossie said...

My, Brother Ivo, you are a glutton for punishment!

I do very much appreciate, though, the link you posted under 'background information', which is an excellent tool. A pity some of the women of WATCH haven't taken heed.

You are right that there will be no mind-changing, not from the orthodox side anyhow. We are convinced that 2,000 years of accumulated wisdom cannot be wiped out in the name of 'equality'.

There is a lot of fear on both sides here. We (the orthodox) are afraid of being unchurched, which is a huge loss to many, and the 'other side' fear us as our position cannot be disproved from scripture, and we are simply not fading away, as was originally hoped. Our integrity is growing, and young men are still coming forward for ordination. Just think how galling if the feminised side shrank (as it will) and the orthodox side continued to grow.

10 February 2013 13:20  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Squeeze all you can... There's nothing there. Thus a child shall be taken from it's common sense and it blood shed to fill the empty corridoors and bookshelves to say it is so.

10 February 2013 13:20  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Headship theology may have its place in the gathered congregations of Free Churches, but it is not in its natural habitat within the State Church whose history of continuous doctrine is currently bracketed by the two Supreme Governors Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II.

Am I the only one who sees what's wrong with this sentence? The clue is in the bold tags.

10 February 2013 13:21  
Blogger Flossie said...

What Carl said. With knobs on.

10 February 2013 13:21  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

There is only one Head of the Church - and His name is Jesus. And He will direct His members as He will. That is the essence of faith. It is interesting how rarely His name is mentioned in this, as in so many other arguments within the established church. And He will use each of His sheep as He will, and wherever He will.
It is His prerogative and it has nothing whatsoever to do with church rules forged by men! The real problem is that in its deliberations the C of E has lost connection with its Head.

10 February 2013 13:31  
Blogger Corrigan said...

No, ID, the CofE has not lost connection with it's head; it's head is the Queen. That's kind of the problem.

10 February 2013 13:35  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

You sound like a Conservative Evangelical, Flossie, so why the fear of being 'unchurched'? Disregarding the fact that Evangelical doctrine locates the Church in the local congregation, the Liberal, relevant and get-with-the-times parishes in many dioceses, with their declining and ageing congregations, are often massively cross-subsided by the out of touch and socially unacceptable Conservative Evangelical parishes, who have younger, larger and more affluent congregations.

There are several dioceses potentially staring bankruptcy in the face were they to lose completely the parish share paid by Conservative Evangelical congregations, so I wouldn't worry too much - they need you a lot more than you need them. If that weren't the case, they'd have unchurched you already.

10 February 2013 13:40  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

No, Corrigan, it's secular Governor is the Queen, ex officio. its Head is Christ.

That was specifically spelled out during the Elizabethan settlement, at least in part because female headship was frowned upon, but mainly to distance the new regime from Henry's very odd ideas about the quasi-priestly role of Kings. His Grace's first incarnation had to tread a very careful line to disabuse Henry of the notion that he was a latter-day Melchizedek.

10 February 2013 13:45  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Few who saw it at the time forget the startlingly jokey, relaxed concluding press conference at which Ian Paisley, Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams spoke publicly together for the first time."

Well yes, but not, I suspect, with any of the warmth that you conjure for it.

Corrigan:

Strictly speaking, the Church of England has not ever had a female "Head" - Henry VIII and Edward VI were both the Supreme Head of the Church of England, whilst Elizabeth I was granted Supreme Governor precisely to avoid the kind of theological debates regarding female headship that might have ensued. All subsequent monarchs have been Governors.

Now, personally, I'm not much in favour of historically dubious claims to Headship of the Church - but at least the Tudors limited themselves to England.

10 February 2013 13:54  
Blogger Corrigan said...

I think you're misunderstanding my point, DN. It's head is indeed the Queen inasmuch as the CofE was created as a tool of political control in the English state. Historically, at least, it existed to serve man, not God, which is the reason why its salient characterisic is its propensity for veering and tacking with every social wind that blows. Henry knew perfectly well that he wasn't a latter day Melchizedek; he just didn't care.

10 February 2013 13:57  
Blogger Corrigan said...

AIB,

Nice little dig at Rome. That'll learn us.

10 February 2013 13:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Corrigan:

At least mine was accurate to the claims made by Rome ;)

10 February 2013 14:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ivo.by a decision to invite eight women,

Deary me young man, what about LGBT representation. They will be furious you've left them out ! you see there is ‘equality’ and there is ‘EQUALITY’. The bold letters indicating there is a form of equality that even you may baulk at...

Won’t bother you with any more criticism. One’s fellows on this site are putting you through the mincer...

By the way, how old are you. One suspects mid twenties. A glorious time of reaching out for the new to replace the old. Trouble is, you would be too young to fully appreciate the old and it’s wisdom, the product of generations past. Also, mid twenties, as this man remembers, is a time when the full thought processes are not quite joined up – but of course, you wouldn’t care about that right now as you have zeal !

pip pip !

10 February 2013 14:07  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Ivo is genuinely sad that we are where we are. People of integrity on both sides have faled to identify a mechanism that will work to reconcile theologies that are seem ( to Brother Ivo) irreconcilable. If that be truly the case it is becoming increasingly necessary to recognise the need to " bite the bullet" and for each view to breathe that huge cathartic sigh of relieve when it is over.

Before. Shakespeare's Othello smothers Desdemona he whispers " If it were to be done, tis better it were done quickly.

Can anyone tell us where there is another alternative?

No recriminations please, just a mechanism for squaring the circle.

Brother Ivo would love to be proved wrong and will warmly applaud the genius that has the iSight to put the third way upon the table for discussion.

10 February 2013 14:16  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

" insight"

10 February 2013 14:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Brother Ivo

just a mechanism for squaring the circle.

Create separate authority structures. Why is this so hard? The answer stares you in the face and yet you look away from it. Why?

carl

10 February 2013 14:19  
Blogger Albert said...

It's very straight forward Brother Ivo. You Anglicans are in this mess because the 1992 legislation was neither coherent nor faithful. The question now is, are you going to build on that phoney legislation or not. I would say not. But if the CofE decides to build on that legislation then there would be no coherent choice left for any but the most liberal Anglicans except to leave.

Identify the error and lance it. Do not build on it.

10 February 2013 14:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 February 2013 14:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

btw. The quote from Othello was not well chosen. That is precisely the fate that the minority believes the majority has reserved for its adversaries. You would kill mercifully, and quickly, but the important word is still 'kill.'

carl

10 February 2013 14:24  
Blogger Martin said...

The Tewdwrs were, of course, Welsh. One of the unfriendly powers Flanders & Swann sang of.

10 February 2013 14:36  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

I don't disagree with you about the CoE, Corrigan, but I do about Henry. He had a profound personal (if idiosyncratic) religious faith, and a view of his role as King which veered towards a sacramental interpretation. His Bishops, and Cranmer in particular, put a lot of very careful effort into steering him away from acting as a 'Priest-King' - it wasn't JUST about realpolitik, though obviously that did play a part.

10 February 2013 14:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

the 1992 legislation was neither coherent nor faithful.

It was however strategically wise. By ordaining women you create a fait accompli that cannot be reversed. The 'reception period' becomes a forgone conclusion. Now the clergy in Synod votes for OWE because so many delegates are women. And the HoB has been deliberately stacked with supporters of WO. Only the laity still resist, and you see how they are treated.

The legislation may not have been theologically coherent, but it was strategically coherent. Besides, theology hasn't ever played much of a role in this debate in any case. This is about the Zeitgeist of the Age.

carl

10 February 2013 14:37  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Brother Ivo: objectors of the more US-influenced Evangelical persuasion

Oh please, these doctrines are far from unique to the USA, and have been around in the Evangelical world since the Reformation. Not to mention that I’ve frequently read Dodo expositing such doctrines, so it doesn’t seem like they’re unique to evangelicalism. Cranmer (the 16th C. one) would almost certainly have been with the evangelicals on this.

The only element worth responding to in the Bishop of Liverpool’s statement is that regarding 1 Cor 11. God does have more authority than Christ qua man. You can’t just make a direct, unqualified equivalence between the eternal Son and the Son incarnate as he does, it’s pretty basic. Hence 1 Cor 15 where Christ as the second Adam hands over the kingdom to the Father.

These doctrines exist within parts of the Anglican Communion, but neither feature in the XXXIX Articles, nor are they currently officially recognised doctrines.

Either you’re being disingenuous or you really don’t know how Anglicanism works. The XXXIX articles were never intended to be exhaustive, and you don’t even have to sign up to them to become a vicar! “Officially recognised doctrines?” We aren’t the RCC you know, our conscience isn’t bound by church pronouncements, it’s bound by the Word of God. Oh, and if you believe in the XXXIX articles I hope you believe in double predestination, as it’s clearly taught in them.

Headship theology may have its place in the gathered congregations of Free Churches, but it is not in its natural habitat within the State Church whose history of continuous doctrine is currently bracketed by the two Supreme Governors Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II.

Thanks very much. To rephrase, “if you don’t like it, get out of my church.” Apart from this thinly disguised spite, you also don’t understand what the Supreme Governor is. I’ll give you a clue, she isn’t clergy. Look at article 37 and you’ll see the King is NOT granted ministry of the word and sacrament. So that’s simply a red herring.

And then, to the nub of your argument, you are proposing that liberals take over the church by subversion, not having been able to do it by legitimate means. You mean to force conservative evangelicals out of the church and sabotage the workings of the synod. At least you’ve had the gall to show your true colours, ugly as they are, but don’t you see how deeply evil what you are proposing is, to shunt us out of the church by subverting church order? Don’t you have the least misgivings about it?

10 February 2013 14:42  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

To you, Brother Ivo, squaring the circle seems to mean "one side suppressing the other". Very euphemistic.

10 February 2013 14:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

By ordaining women you create a fait accompli that cannot be reversed. The 'reception period' becomes a forgone conclusion.

Exactly, when I wrote "the 1992 legislation was neither coherent nor faithful" I nearly wrote neither coherent, faithful nor honest". Who in their right mind wishes their sacraments to come through such a filter? It's bizarre.

Only the laity still resist, and you see how they are treated.

Quite. That's what we can see in the plan to include women in the House of Bishops by proxy. How about letting the decision of the General Synod stand? It's like the EU, except that in the EU, when the people do not give the right answer, at least they give them a second referendum.

10 February 2013 15:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Thomas,

I hope you believe in double predestination, as it’s clearly taught in them.

Where?

10 February 2013 15:08  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

I am hearing the frustration, the indignation and the hurt but nobody offers a coherent solution apart from the observation that the two views need separate authorities. That is, so far as Brother Ivo sees, a separation is it not?

If that is our inevitable destiny then is it Brother Ivo's fault that he identifies it and suggests we take the pain sooner rather than later?

Tell me your better solution if you know how to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable and I shall acclaim you as the peacemaker we need.

The proposal for Bishops voting by proxy at the behest of the lady attenders at least accelerates the process to decision point.

10 February 2013 15:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

What a ridiculous, manipulative and evil proposal Ivo to play politics with the Church of England's governance structures.

Who on earth (question mark?) dreamt this little one up?

10 February 2013 15:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Solve the problem by reversing the decision to *ordain* women. Without this, serious Christians, of whatever persuasion, who follow their consciences, will have to find another church.

The history of so much protesting, I'm afraid. Agree with us, shut up or get out.

10 February 2013 15:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Brother Ivo

That is, so far as Brother Ivo sees, a separation is it not?

It's a separation in terms of spiritual authority. That is the focus of the issue. It doesn't have to devolve into an organizational split. If you want to look for 'creative solutions' then look for ways to share temporal authority.

The problem of course is that those sorts of creative solutions would mean a loss of control and money. It's not really about "keeping everybody in the church." It's about centralized power and control of the institution. Separate authority structures undermine that desire.

And then there is the unstated "Gamaliel Test" that would be presented to the world. The last thing supporters of WO want is to see their theological opponents thrive while they whither. But that is exactly what would happen.

You could do it if you wanted to. But you don't want to. You want to separate the laity from its leadership in hopes of 're-educating' the laity so you can maintain access to its money and growth. That in one single sentence describes everything anyone needs to know about this whole effort to make 'provision' and find a way forward.

carl

10 February 2013 15:31  
Blogger Albert said...

but nobody offers a coherent solution apart from the observation that the two views need separate authorities

That's not true. I have offered a clear, coherent, theological and truthful solution that maintains unity. It may be that the CofE will not go for it. But what is that, but an admission that the CofE does not wish for a coherent, theological, truthful and united solution?

The vote in 1992 violated all those principles. The proper response is for the CofE to repent not make matters worse by kicking those out who were not responsible for the problem and who were promised they could stay.

The proposal for Bishops voting by proxy at the behest of the lady attenders at least accelerates the process to decision point.

I really think you need to think about the ecclesiological implications of that. It would amount to booting opponents out, contrary to the vote of General Synod and without even getting women 'ordained bishops'.

10 February 2013 15:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

Quite. By the standard of the Gamaliel Test - much vaunted by supporters before '92, WO has failed. By the standards therefore of the rationale for the '92 vote, the legislation should be over-turned.

10 February 2013 15:36  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Why not draw lots?

I say that only partially flippantly - the problem is that both sides do not at their core recognise the authority of the other to oppose their position.

Since neither side is content to understand the voting of the Synod as being divinely infallible, it is pointless to expect voting to achieve a harmonious compromise where only a single answer is offered.

The question to ask is: what would convince you to change your mind?

10 February 2013 15:46  
Blogger Galant said...

Question - Does the CofE have no theology of sex?

10 February 2013 15:49  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Brother Ivo,

Anglo-Catholics and Conservative Evangelicals lobbied consistently for the creation of a third, non-geographical province to cater for those who could not in conscience accept female headship or who required sacramental assurance. All that was needed was the creation of a flying Archbishop to go with the already existing flying Bishops.

This would have allowed for the creation of women Bishops in the other two provinces considerably earlier, and avoided the current debacle, but the supporters of women Bishops refused to accept any situation in which Traditionalists were not compelled to accept their authority, in complete contrast to the assurance given in 1992 that they would have an honoured place in the Church.

The legislation was voted down in Synod not because a substantial minority are against women Bishops but because the legislation did not contain the long-promised assurance for those that are.

A third province would still be by far and away the best solution. Those would-be Women Bishops weeping into their cassocks after the recent Synod vote have only themselves and their own intolerance to blame.

10 February 2013 15:59  
Blogger HolyKraut said...

@Thomas K.: "We aren’t the RCC you know, our conscience isn’t bound by church pronouncements, it’s bound by the Word of God."
So you don't believe God proclaims himself through the Church he established?

@Martin: "the Bible is the final authority."
Says who? And by what authority?

10 February 2013 15:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

By the standards therefore of the rationale for the '92 vote, the legislation should be over-turned.

But it is too late to do that. It will never happen. The CoE is stuck with WO. I think some egalitarian conservatives believe that this change can be accomplished in a doctrinally neutral manner. Certainly Liberals know better. They can hardly contain their salivating. Evidently the egalitarian conservatives haven't been watching TEC for the last 40 years. Two irreversible processes are going to be engaged by the outcome of this fight:

1. The outflow of conservatives from the CoE.

2. The creation of a viable Free Church Anglican presence to receive them.

It means certain death to the established CoE. The outflow makes innovations of Liberal religion easier to achieve. The innovations increase the outflow. Eventually the whole operation goes bankrupt, because there aren't enough Liberal religionists available to sustain the system.

carl

10 February 2013 16:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The irony is too rich to let pass by.

Dodo wrote:

The history of so much protesting, I'm afraid. Agree with us, shut up or get out.

Yes, the Roman Catholic equivalent goes like this:

"We hereby declare, pronounce, define, and proclaim that if any man disagrees with the dogma of the Holy Catholic Church, and refuses upon correction to repent, then let him be anathema."

"We hereby declare, pronounce, define, and proclaim that if any man disagrees with the dogma of the Holy Catholic Church, and refuses upon correction to shut up, then let him be anathema."

"We hereby declare, pronounce, define, and proclaim that if any man disagrees with the dogma of the Holy Catholic Church, and refuses upon correction to get out, then let him be anathema."


carl

10 February 2013 16:20  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"It means certain death to the established CoE."

I'd be less sure of this one actually.

My guess would be that the triumph of the liberalisation of the Church of England will be its ensured survival as the "Church of the Nation". Oh, to be sure, there will be a revision of its constitutional powers (I'd expect Bishops to be countered by other faith leaders in the House of Lords, for instance), but so long as it pipes the tune that all three major political parties play it will not wholly be trashed.

It will be like the NHS - an institution to be loved, adored, and praised as an idol to "what it really means to be British/a Conservative/a decent Human Being"; but one that nevertheless persistently results in leading into death those it is given cure over.

Heaven knows money is found (i.e. printed) for many other aspirational and equitable enterprises. For ill and worse, in sickness and its eventual death, the liberal Church will be bound to the State.

10 February 2013 16:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AIB

Yes, I agree that is a possibility. You are better positioned than I to determine the likelihood of such an outcome. I was assuming that the state wouldn't pony up money to keep the CoE alive. It would be paying a lot of money to sustain a church that would possess more clergy than laity.

carl

10 February 2013 16:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl:

I imagine in the States the idea of propping up a religious organisation with government money would be deemed absurd.

Over here, it will continue to be propped up on the basis that it does important community work (which it does, but increasingly this will be its sole calling, stripped of any theological meaning of holy works), represents an important "heritage" of the country, and, above all, is able to "speak to everyone".

A few years ago, we had paroxysms regarding the Prince of Wales' intention to be the "Defender of Faiths". Increasingly, it looks likely that the CofE will pre-empt his desire.

Actually, I don't expect any of this to come from the political left (which tends to just leave it alone). It will come from the Conservatives, and we will be told, again and again and again, that they do so "because they are conservative".

10 February 2013 16:35  
Blogger Galant said...

The Bishop Of Liverpool's reasoning against headship is actually reasoning for it. No?

10 February 2013 16:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

the problem is that both sides do not at their core recognise the authority of the other to oppose their position.

True up to a point. However, those in favour recognise that their legislation of 1992 was incoherent (it required women bishops, while denying them). They also recognise that you cannot have women bishops without imposing them on everyone. But the CofE does not have sufficient confidence in WO to do this. Therefore the only logical conclusion is for those in favour to over-turn the legislation.

So they don't need to recognise the authority of the opposing side. They just need to recognise the incoherence of their own position.

10 February 2013 16:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AIB

increasingly this will be its sole calling, stripped of any theological meaning of holy works

Well, that is the socially-approved role for religion in a religiously secular state. "Adjunct social welfare system that alleviates a portion of the state budget. No religious content allowed." But it's hard to do good works when your organization is comprised of 40 odd bishops plus staff.

carl

10 February 2013 16:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl @1602

I agree. There is no real hope of the CofE reforming this error. And that raises serious questions about the CofE. What is the point of a reformed communion which refuses to be reformed and which imposes dogma (for that is what WO amounts to with women bishops) which is cannot prove from its own authorities?

So there's no irony with Dodo's position. The Catholic Church claims infallibility. The CofE does not. Part of the reason the CofE is separate from Catholicism is because it does not accept infallibility. For it then to behave as if it has an infallible Magisterium on this matter, while denying that it does is ironic.

10 February 2013 16:47  
Blogger Martin said...

The predestination of the 39 Articles is not of a 'double' type, just a normal, Calvinistic type:

XVII. Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

Equally the 39 Articles give the reason why Scripture is the only rule:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

As for God proclaiming himself through the Church he established, a church may not be part of that Church which God established. And history has shown us that those who claim most loudly the authority of tradition dissent most from the Faith once delivered to the Saints.

10 February 2013 16:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AIB said ...
"Since neither side is content to understand the voting of the Synod as being divinely infallible, it is pointless to expect voting to achieve a harmonious compromise where only a single answer is offered."

A protestant 'insider' joke. yes? No 'true' protestant could ever surrender individual, personal, biblical authority; and all guided by the One Holy Spirit who appears to be remarkably inconsistent in this.

Therefore, nothing is, nor can ever be, infallible and unchanging.

Imagine trying to contain and control this free market of theologies! But no need to imagine. Just look at the history of the General Synod. Then look at the market available to accommodate this diversity of belief.

Anyone, believing anything and expressing any life-style, can find a "home".

10 February 2013 16:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ivo. You’ve been around long enough now to make a meaningful comparison between yours and the Archbishop’s style.

Your man will take a subject, and give us the benefit of his interpretation of all the issues surrounding, including the one’s that are not immediately apparent to us mere mortals. He then throws it out to the baying pack to see what we make of it. He has been remarkably successful doing this and his following in numbers is impressive.

You, on the other hand, give us carefully pre-prepared propaganda which you pin up on a telegraph pole. As we read the proclamation and whine, there you are standing right behind us tut tutting in disapproval as we bleat. How jolly intimate, what !

You can learn a lot from our main man, but in the meantime, one supposes he could get used to your methods in time, albeit grudgingly...

10 February 2013 16:57  
Blogger len said...

There is a grave danger of' the World' bursting into the church and demanding that the Church' modernise' to come into step with what is currently happening in the World.Women in the World are demanding and getting (quite rightly) 'equal rights'in many spheres.

But the Church is not supposed to conform' to the World'and should never do so.'Headship' is clearly defined in Scripture although its interpretation is not always clearly understood.Men and Women have different roles, this does not make one superior and one inferior just different.
Part of the problem in Society is 'absent Fathers'those who refuse to take responsibility for their partners and offspring this is all part of 'Headship'which is as much 'accountability' as anything else.
Jesus is the Head of the Church and the father is the spiritual head of the family and is accountable to Jesus as such.

This may seem 'old fashioned' to many but this is the way God has ordained it.

10 February 2013 16:59  
Blogger Flossie said...

The theology was not done in 1992. The result went on vote. Many of the voters simply did not understand the issues. They fell for the assurances that bringing in women would make for a kinder, gentler church which would attract families, especially children. Well, it didn't. The opposite happened. It's too late now; the C of E is not going to stop ordaining women any time soon.

Nor will they allow a third province; that has been made abundantly clear. Just like any tyrant they must kill of all opposition, in case it resurfaces to challenge them.

I cannot see any solution for the C of E which will satisfy all parties.

10 February 2013 17:02  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Albert,

Why can't you have women bishops without imposing them on everyone? That was what a third province was designed to do. The liberals within the CoE couldn't abide the idea of having a part of it upon which they could not impose their revisionist theology, but there was no practical reason why it could not have been done. The third province would not have been under the sacramental authority of Canterbury any more than any other Anglican province is, so even if the ABC had been a woman it would not have had any impact. Most conservatives did not have any problem with the CoE having women bishops, as long as there was proper provision for those who could not accept them.

10 February 2013 17:06  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Brother Ivo,
I sometimes fail to understand why women have such demands for rights. Are they so ambitious as to destroy the CofE in their desire for equality?
'Lay hands on no man suddenly' is a call to consider ones actions with a patience that permits time to bear upon the subject. A period of consideration might well be on the cards as a result of this pressure to accept change.
When the spies failed to agree on the merits of going in to the promised land they went back to the wilderness until most has passed on. The ordination of women may be seen as a promised land by women, but where is the promise of God?
Some things will never come to pass and some things will come to pass in another generation. May they take the time to reflect and do that which God has given them to do with the whole of their heart. There will then be no disappointment.

10 February 2013 17:09  
Blogger Flossie said...

Just taking up Len's point about fathers and men generally and my last point about children - men do not find a feminised church attractive. That's just how it is. When women take on a role men will leave it. It's happened with teaching, and fewer young men are coming forward for ordination. Laymen do not want a feminised church.

I have posted this before, but it is an important piece of research on the influence of fathers on their children's future churchgoing.

'It is the religious practice of the father of the family that, above all, determines the future attendance at or absence from church of the children.

If both father and mother attend regularly, 33 percent of their children will end up as regular churchgoers, and 41 percent will end up attending irregularly. Only a quarter of their children will end up not practicing at all. If the father is irregular and mother regular, only 3 percent of the children will subsequently become regulars themselves, while a further 59 percent will become irregulars. Thirty-eight percent will be lost.

If the father is non-practicing and mother regular, only 2 percent of children will become regular worshippers, and 37 percent will attend irregularly. Over 60 percent of their children will be lost completely to the church.'

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-05-024-v#ixzz2KW7ZRrTc

10 February 2013 17:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Men are just not programmed to take leadership or instruction from all but a proven few women. The Inspector can’t even take in the TV weather forecast if there’s a woman presenting it. He’s too busy appreciating her bust, hips, legs, shoes, that he misses the damn chart altogether. And he can’t hear her either, it’s all one long feminine whine to him. Has to go on to text to pick it up. And it’s not his fault either, she will have spent an hour in makeup before hand. He didn’t stand a chance !

No point screaming out ‘sexist pig’ either - God made us real men to be like that. He just did. If you don’t like it, take it up with God...


10 February 2013 17:23  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Dodo:

Hopefully you'll be understanding that my comments have been referring not only to how I see things, but also an analysis of different positions which I do not necessarily share.

In fact, I raise the issue of infallibility because it demonstrates the fact that both sides at their core adduce a different "self-evident" authority to press their claim. For one it is manifestly self-evident that having women bishops is a matter of fundamental equality and respect for all humans - values which many of them see as being the crux of the Gospel preached to Jews and Gentiles alike. For the other, it is manifestly self-evident that Scripture precludes any possibility of women bishops, and that the advancement of such a claim can only be undertaken at the detriment of the authority of Scripture.

From this it is possible to see that both sides must regard any democratic assent as being a seal of approval which is not strictly necessary to test the principles they stand by. In that sense, the idea that people approached the Synod as a place where God's Will would be revealed is demonstrated to be untrue when it becomes apparent that, upon losing, either side would merely take it as an indication of the "wrong sorts" having too much influence.

I don't honestly know what the spiritual significance is of the fact that the original vote for WO passed by 3 votes, and the most recent vote failed by 6. I do know that God has a Will - and I do know that God is infallible. I also believe that Scripture is authoritative, and so instantly distrust arguments that chip away at that authority (regardless of which side they come from).

Would anyone be happy if they all agreed the matter would be settled by a prayer and the drawing of lots? Would we have a consensus that the Lord would determine which He favoured? Frankly, I suspect there are some who would hold to their positions even if the heavens opened and a host of angels declared the "answer".

My torturous point is simply this: the question of whether a consensus can be reached on the issue is ultimately insurmountable so long as my description of the two sides' reasoning holds true. That leaves us with broadly two possibilities: creating the terms by which the two may cohabit, or a divorce.

10 February 2013 17:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Martin

The predestination in the Articles is a qualified version of Calvinism. Just read the second part of it. It's an excellent example of its author ability to spin truth and error together, creating co-joined twins ultimately incapable of co-existence.

10 February 2013 17:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AIB

From my position, this 'situation' demonstrates why Christ, in His Wisdom, established an authoritative Church and invested it with infallibility and indefectibility.

10 February 2013 17:27  
Blogger HolyKraut said...

Martin, it seems you have chosen not to answer the question: does God proclaim himself through the Church he established?
How can it arise that "a church may not be part of that Church which God established"? Did the Church that God established cease to be? When did that happen? 
And who are these who claim the "authority of tradition?" As far as I am aware the Church claims the authority of Christ, not tradition. 

10 February 2013 17:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Darter Noster,

I meant while maintaining unity. I'm not sure however whether the Third Province completely works. Bishops if they are truly universal must be in communion with the other bishops, not only of their province, but of the world. Of course, that is rather awkward for an Anglican,whether or not there are women bishops.

Nevertheless, the Third Province is the best solution, but it was probably only ever proposed as a way of bringing a whole group to Rome. Remember there was a key move in the idea: freedom of ecumenical manoeuvre. That was FinF speak for "we want to do a deal with Rome and we aren't going to want to be held back by heretics in the CofE."

10 February 2013 17:35  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

For one it is manifestly self-evident that having women bishops is a matter of fundamental equality and respect for all humans

I think you are right - for many in favour. However, if so, those in favour should just proclaim that as a dogma and excommunicate those opposed. Why don't they do that? It's surely because they see, in some dim way, that actually it's bigger than what the find self-evident. There must be theological authority and there must be some kind of ecclesiality to it. But when those things are considered, you simply cannot impose it, hence, it cannot coherently be a self-evident truth.

10 February 2013 17:40  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Surely the whole point of inviting women to the House of Bishops discussions is that they can continually chant "No surrender!" to strengthen the cause as they press for a single clause safeguarding only themselves.

Given the impasse a third Province is the obvious way forward allowing both integrities the opportunity to fail or prosper according to the will of the Holy Spirit. Oddly enough in correspondence with one of the more vocal bishops he actually thought that wasn't such a bad idea.

10 February 2013 17:50  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Well I can watch the TV weather girls , appreciate their bust, hips, legs, shoes and STILL take in the weather.

10 February 2013 17:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

Men can and do rise above focussing exclusively on the physical attributes of a woman. There are techniques too, if you'd care to do some research. One involves the pinging of an elastic band, if memory serves.

10 February 2013 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hannah: "Well I can watch the TV weather girls , appreciate their bust, hips, legs, shoes and STILL take in the weather."

That famous multi-tasking skill of women. :)

10 February 2013 18:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

The infamous multi-tasking of women!

That ability to weigh up physical attributes whilst simultaneously conducting a rational exploration of other materially relevant factors in a prospective mate.

10 February 2013 18:27  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Albert:

In a sense, I agree with both positions, becuase both are Scriptural in foundation. Where I disagree with both is when one decides that Scripture is optional, or can be swept aside by the justification that it is "not for these times", and where the other makes it plain through its conduct and its language that it is not in fact interested in establishing just and respectful relationships between men and women but the subjugation of the latter to the former.

Scripture points instead towards a relationship founded in respect and submission which is given freely and cannot be demanded. There is no "superior/inferior" in the sense that those terms are used by the world to imply value or worth.

10 February 2013 18:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AIB said ...

"In a sense, I agree with both positions, becuase both are Scriptural in foundation."

Nice 'Anglican Mainstream' position.

One must surely have a greater objective truth than the other? Scripture is inerrant; the Holy Spirit guides individuals to a full understanding of its meaning, regardless of status or learning. And even if this is not immediately apparent, both cannot be correct. The Holy Spirit and Scripture cannot contradict Himself or itself.

Why not throw a dice? Leave it all to chance? Or, then again, why not trust Christ gave His Church Apostolic authority?

10 February 2013 18:39  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Dodo:

I find that on reflection, positions that are represented as being in opposition and yet are both Scriptural in basis are usually less difficult to reconcile than their respective adherents.

But then I look at the present crisis/crises with an eye to their spiritual portent, and ask why it should be that the Church is so riven with dissension and division at a time when much of it is under assault around the world, and where the remainder is fiddling whilst it haemorrages its membership.

I'm afraid my starting point for such things tends to be the recognition that the Church needs more God. When that happens, things have a way of falling into place, and enemies have a way of falling into brotherhood. Almost as though there is some sort of Providence, almost as though there is some sort of Grace.

10 February 2013 18:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AIB said ...

"Where I disagree with both .... "

And proceeded to caricature human behaviour on both sides. One being unreasonably unbiblical; the other insensitively mishandling the application of scripture.

One has a theological problem. The other a public relations problem.

10 February 2013 18:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Dodo:

It's always been the case that its our failings that draw us apart, and God's Grace that draws us together.

10 February 2013 18:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

AIB said ...

"Almost as though there is some sort of Providence, almost as though there is some sort of Grace." to

Well yes, but God also has a way of requiring His people to step forward when necessary and building on their successes. If they don't, then He appears to withdraw His Grace and protection for a time in order to achieve His purpose.

10 February 2013 18:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

where the other makes it plain through its conduct and its language that it is not in fact interested in establishing just and respectful relationships between men and women but the subjugation of the latter to the former.

That's interesting, because that isn't really my experience. I suspect that is how it comes across in an Evangelical context because the whole thing is about Headship and submission. But surely that is still to miss the point. The idea (hopefully) is not that women should submit because that's what others wants, but rather that they should submit because that's what scripture requires.

The tensions and anger involved in this are there because the issue becomes symbolic of other things. In this case, it is symbolic of being faithful to scripture. A generation ago the issue for Evangelicals was whether someone believed Jesus was literally born of a virgin.

Scripture points instead towards a relationship founded in respect and submission which is given freely and cannot be demanded.

Interesting, because that seems to me to be exactly what Paul commands:

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If any one does not recognize this, he is not recognized.


This looks like a demand to me - especially as he invokes the authority of the Lord. Granted, the demand is for the sake of mutual respect, but it is a demand nonetheless.

10 February 2013 18:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Well yes, but God also has a way of requiring His people to step forward when necessary and building on their successes. If they don't, then He appears to withdraw His Grace and protection for a time in order to achieve His purpose. "

Very true. The question is what it means to depart from God's Will. You can look at it solely from a doctrinal point of view, in which case a failure of doctrine is the primary measure. But on the other hand, we also know that one can know and adhere to all the words of Scripture and yet possess a heart so hard it cannot be pierced with God's love, and so is equally dead.

I find Isaiah's words helpful on this point:

"Although the Lord has given you bread of privation and water of oppression, He, your Teacher will no longer hide Himself, but your eyes will behold your Teacher. Your ears will hear a word behind you, “This is the way, walk in it,” whenever you turn to the right or to the left. And you will defile your graven images overlaid with silver, and your molten images plated with gold. You will scatter them as an impure thing, and say to them, “Be gone!”" (Isaiah 30:20-23)

We know both the Teacher and the Way as Jesus. When we are torn between the left and the right, we do well to turn our hearts to Him.

I mean that as a quite specifically practical thing. We can all restate over and over again that the two positions are incompatible, that compromise is unpalatable, and that division is inevitable.

We do so because we imagine that our standing with God relies on the burden of the issue: either the defacement of that principle of universal love, or the defacement of Scripture's authority. It doesn't. The burden lies on Christ's shoulders, and died there on the Cross. We have real and unending access to God's favour through Jesus' atoning death.

Now yes, that doesn't mean that God is theologically incoherent - He is Coherent. But it does mean that we may still be sure of His love despite the fact that we are, in varying degrees theologically divergent from Him. Indeed, we were assured of His love through Jesus' blood when we were separated from Him by the gulf of our sin.

Brother Ivo asked for practical solutions. The solution is more Jesus. We need to set our burdens before His Throne. We need to sit down and share fellowship, we need to break bread with one another, and we need to learn how to love one another again. God safeguards His Holy Will, and He has promised that those who are faithful in Him will know right doctrine, which ever seeks to glorify God, and false doctrine, which seeks to glorify man:

"If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority. The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." (John 7:17-18)

10 February 2013 19:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Albert:

I was referring to the relationship between men and women, and husbands and wives.

See my above post regarding knowing right doctrine.

10 February 2013 19:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AIB

We need to sit down and share fellowship, we need to break bread with one another, and we need to learn how to love one another again.

Unfortunately, there is a great mixture of believers and unbelievers in the cacophony calling for WO. The problem originates in the fact that the CoE is an unequally yoked church. It is an unholy marriage of true and false religion. No amount of breaking bread can overcome that salient fact.

carl

10 February 2013 19:24  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl:

You are, as ever, quite correct. But in sitting down to break bread two things will happen: those who do not know God will depart early, and some of those who came unbelieving will touch His wounds, and see His scars, and believe.

10 February 2013 19:32  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

AnonymousinBelfast

Your proposed solution is indeed the Godly one, but what can you say to those who those who will not accept that most in the Church have received a full and complete ministry from dedicated, effective, spiritual, intelligent learned patient loving experienced authoritative priests who just happen to be ( err... How do I break this to them gently? ....) women

10 February 2013 19:54  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Albert and those others who pointed it out. Sorry, you are right, it is just single predestination outlined in the XXXIX articles, it was only the Lambeth articles formulated by Whitgift that had the double version. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

10 February 2013 19:58  
Blogger Flossie said...

Brother Ivo!! Have you not been listening to anything? The ministry of women may well be dedicated, effective, spiritual, intelligent, learned, patient, loving, experienced,authoritative -all these things and more - but you are confusing ministry with priesthood.



10 February 2013 19:58  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

AnonymousinBelfast

Your proposed solution is indeed the Godly one, but what can you say to those who will not accept that most in the Church have been receiving for decades a full and complete ministry from dedicated, effective, spiritual, intelligent learned patient loving experienced authoritative priests who just happen to be ( err... how do I break this to them gently? ....) ......women

10 February 2013 19:59  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

AnonymousinBelfast

Your proposed solution is indeed the Godly one, but what can you say to those who will not accept that most in the Church have been receiving for decades a full and complete ministry from dedicated, effective, spiritual, intelligent learned patient loving experienced authoritative priests who just happen to be ( err... how do I break this to them gently? ....) ......women

10 February 2013 19:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Brother Ivo:

Start from the basics. We know where we are divided. Where are we united?

We accept that, as St. Paul taught, in Christ there is no male or female.

If we cannot reach an agreement regarding women priests, we should nevertheless be able to come to an agreement that in our salvation we come equally impoverished before God under His Grace.

What I am saying is that if the divisions seem to much - if the burdens we carry are a cause for us to break fellowship with one another, then the only possibility for our reunion (which should, in principle, be desirable) is to be found by laying aside those burdens. As I do not advocate ignoring or setting aside willy-nilly something so important, the only way to proceed is to hand those burdens over, even if only for a time, to God.

We need to find a way of leaving our divisions at the door and coming before Christ's table as brothers and sisters. We need to recapture the idea that there is something sacred about God's presence, not to be violated by our divisions, and then rest and await His instruction there.

In short, we need a retreat from ourselves for a time, we need holy space in which we can listen to God together, and we need to have faith that He will guide us, and humility to accept His teaching.

10 February 2013 20:02  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Lent is coming up. What if the Church asked its membership to seriously, and earnestly rest in God for that time. In effect, call a cease-fire - a sabatical from maneuvres, in which at both the Parish and episcopal level we expressly set aside time to simply enter God's presence on the issue.

We could agree, honestly and sincerely to come before God, not to try and use the space to advance the cause, but just to wait on His presence.

I wonder what He would put in our hearts?

10 February 2013 20:08  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Flossie please do not confuse not listening with having listened but not being convinced.

I cannot tell you how much women priests is " not an issue" in Churches that decided to apply the maxim " by their fruits, ye shall know them".

We have tasted and the fruits are good.

Anonymousinbelfast has offered the test, and by that test womens priesthood is here to stay. That being so, their continued exclusion from the role of Bishop is untenable, and "let's get this over with" is not triumphalism but simply a strategy for minimising the prolongation of the agony.

10 February 2013 20:16  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Anonymousinbelfast I do understand your point but Women Priests is but the tip of the iceberg.

What do you make of a very wealthy church whose leadership disapproves of the way things are going in the Church and refuses to pay its parish share; it supports church plants of its own persuasion. That Church does not put its detailed doctrine or its non payment in the shop window at election time and sends representatives to Synods to implacably oppose women priests.

That church will maintain its "semi-detached " character on other issues.

Surely what I have described is a breakdown in fellowship. it happens to be breaking on the issue of women bishops, but if not that, then we move on to the next problem.

To hold the privilege of representative role and to resolve to operate as an implacable blocking minority whilst refusing to take up the duty of paying the proper share is
surely not a position of integrity.

Jesus said nothing directly on Bishops -let alone the sex thereof; he did however say a great deal about money.

My point however, is not about the money but the serious breach of fellowship that does exist and shows no sign of improving.

In such a case, don't we need to bow to the inevitable; they just don't approve of the Church of England anymore and the sooner they become the independent sect of their own choosing the better.

10 February 2013 20:45  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Flossie

More stats

" In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally.
A non-practicing mother with a regular father will see a minimum of two-thirds of her children ending up at church. In contrast, a non-practicing father with a regular mother will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door."


http://www.raisinggodlychildren.org/2011/08/fathers-and-church-attendence.html

Why?

"Writing in New Directions magazine (April 2000), Anglican Vicar Robbie Low, reflecting on the Swiss survey, suggests that "when a child begins to move into that period of differentiation from home and engagement with the world 'out there', he (and she) looks increasingly to the father for that role model. Where the father is indifferent, inadequate or just plain absent, that task is much harder and the consequences more profound."

I really agree with the statement someone else made above that feminized men are as off putting to men as women are in ministry.

Phil




10 February 2013 20:58  
Blogger Martin said...

WotD

I'll grant you have a point, but it is clearly unclear enough that many good men in the past have assented to it. ;-)

10 February 2013 21:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Brother Ivo,

but what can you say to those who will not accept that most in the Church have been receiving for decades a full and complete ministry from dedicated, effective, spiritual, intelligent learned patient loving experienced authoritative priests who just happen to be ( err... how do I break this to them gently? ....) ......women

By any standard, this is simply untrue. But in any case, Belfast's suggestion was more Jesus. How about doing what Jesus did? It's his Church, not ours. Strange how people forget that.

10 February 2013 21:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Brother Ivo

What a wagonload of [insert a strong colonialist phrase for 'equine excrement' here]. Are you united on the divinity of Christ? No. Are you united on the nature of the Atonement? No. Are you united on reality of the physical resurrection? No. Are you united on the exclusive nature of the Christian truth? Are you even united on the existence of God? You say "The Creeds! The Creeds! We have the Creeds!" But they are words on a page to which men may attach any meaning they like. So where then have you chosen to draw your line in the sand over fellowship? Over women bishops. How perfect.

To hold the privilege of representative role and to resolve to operate as an implacable blocking minority whilst refusing to take up the duty of paying the proper share is surely not a position of integrity.

You break bread with atheist priests, and yet you strain over women bishops? You say it's not about money, but it's about money alright. "What fellowship have we with them? They won't give us our parish share."

Surely what I have described is a breakdown in fellowship. it happens to be breaking on the issue of women bishops, but if not that, then we move on to the next problem.

We have put paid to the idea that the next problem could be about doctrine (since the CoE evidently doesn't have any doctrine beyond the necessity of OWE) so what could that 'next problem' be about? Besides money, of course.

It's all about money. It's always been about money. It's about money that certain churches possess, and other churches want. If it wasn't for the money, this would have been solved already.

carl

10 February 2013 21:07  
Blogger Martin said...

HK

The Church is not infallible but is the proclaimer of God's Word. It is not the Church's role to invent new teachings that are not found in the Bible.

That individual churches have had their lampstands removed is indisputable. Those churches John wrote to no longer exist and the church Paul wrote in Rome has likewise perished.

Perhaps the CoE is suffering from the worldliness imposed on it in times past. The structure of minister and bishop is at odds with the Bible's of multiple elders/bishop & deacon in the local church. This structure is one of power, not the service the elder is called to give, and is seen as such by those seeking the ordination of women. So it is natural that they seek power, not service.

10 February 2013 21:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Wow Carl! If that's all I had ever read of anything you had written, I would assume you were a convert to Catholicism from Anglo-catholicism.

10 February 2013 21:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Brother Ivo,

We have tasted and the fruits are good.

Which fruits would they be? Division, doubts about sacramental assurance, the thin end of the wedge regarding other elements of the gender agenda, incoherence, all the evidence that ordained women are far less credally faithful than their male colleagues? Which fruit are you going for?

Didn't Rowan Williams himself point out that women priest hadn't brought the fruit people were hoping for?

10 February 2013 21:25  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ivo said ...

" ... they just don't approve of the Church of England anymore and the sooner they become the independent sect of their own choosing the better."

What a sad comment on the end of the beginning of the final ending of the Established Christian Church of England .

As Carl said ...

"It is an unholy marriage of true and false religion. No amount of breaking bread can overcome that salient fact."

It was never a marriage but an unholy attempt by the 'reformers' to break all links with Rome and to introduce Calvinist error over the top of the nations essentially Catholic faith. The name of Henry's church could have been the 'Anglo-Catholic Church' but for this.

The Articles, despite their fine words and skilful art, display an avoidance of transparency and a theological indecisiveness. Calvinism can never be reconciled with Catholicism or, indeed, with 'modernist' or 'fundamentalist' evangelism. And in between these opposites in the way salvation is understood and lived, a gap opened that permitted other variants of untruth to take hold.

Truly,

"Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand."

And the method chosen by God,

"That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."


Not through a lust for power or an intent to aggressively repress unpleasant or dangerous ideas. But through the model of leadership shown by Christ, and under the uniquely available guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Mystical Body.

Being human, things in the Apostolic Church haven't always quite worked out as they should. If only this was an ideal world. However, God knew all this and promised its survival come what may.

10 February 2013 21:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

C'mon now, Albert. You know me better than that. Me? A Roman Catholic? And here I am ignoring Dodo's willful misconstrual of everything I said just to keep the thread focused.

Anyways, I thought that was a very Protestant speech. Very Reformed. Jonathan Edwards would have approved.

carl

10 February 2013 21:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 February 2013 21:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ooops, wrong thread. Comment removed ...

10 February 2013 21:51  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Carl,

Please reflect on your assertion that I " break bread with atheist priests".

Do I?

Could you identify them to me?

Just one will do.

That hyperbole is unworthy of you.

You also suggest that the money matters to me; you cannot imagine how mistaken that is. They can take their money and go -with my blessing, if they cannot bear to remain within a Church completing the journey it set out on twenty years ago. It is not the money I worry about, having heard Bishop Chad Gandiya speak of the Zimbabwean Church growing when locked out of its Churches .

There are Churches growing the Kingdom headed by women priests.

10 February 2013 22:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


I say fellows !

Has it occurred to anyone else that ‘Brother’ Ivo may well be ‘Sister’ Ivy. And there is worse, a cunning vixen with her eyes upon a bishopric.

(One had to be damn careful spelling that last word, I can tell you !)

10 February 2013 22:31  
Blogger non mouse said...

May I express appreciation to both AIB and Flossie today for excellent posts against a divisive trend that is destroying the CoE.

Yes, I have met some people who support priestesses. I even occasionally attend a church that uses them - because I love church, our music, and what's left of our liturgy. And as they use modern Bibles, I take my KJV to read along with it.

But I steer very clear of the female officiators, especially of the lezzo one who tries to look as serious and important as a man. Nothing would make me confide in them, go to their socials, or request them to officiate at a Christening, a wedding, or a funeral. Nor would I send children of mine to their Sunday Schools -- though I might have done before the power-grab. And I'm not the only woman there who reacts like that.

So maybe the lefty, europhilic, CoE [that's not the euro CoE, btw] can apply some lefty techniques to itself instead of forcing them on us? Such as changing the meanings of label-words, for example. As someone suggested above, there's nothing wrong with Women Ministers; women have always have been able to minister--like Martha and Mary.

There's also nothing wrong with having the Queen as our earthly Head - indeed, it's rather good so long as she and wise men can balance each others' influence. [Anyway, HM hasn't usurped anyone else's power; quite the opposite, actually]. But how despicable if ever the CoE's Power gave itself away to the -ism agenda.

There would be, furthermore, something wrong with a Father Katja. Mother Katherine already has a very powerful place of her own, but it's not as a Priestess --which concept leans to pagan notions like earth-mothers, fertility rites, oracles, war-goddesses, etc.

No. The point is that Fathers and Mothers have different natures and different, but complementary, jobs to do in this world, ... and "you can't have one without the other." And yes, today's problem is related to the other day's -- through the neu (note my trendy german word) world and its gender-ism.

10 February 2013 22:35  
Blogger Flossie said...

Phil Roberts @20.58 - you are actually quoting from the same article that I was, by Fr Robbie Low, originally published in New Directions - and which I have seen reproduced in several other places. It's a highly significant piece of research, which does rather give lie to the assurances that women priests would attract children and young people - quite the opposite has actually happened.

Fr Robbie was instrumental in commissioning the Mind of Anglicans Survey which has been referred to. There is so much evidence of the liberalisation of the church caused by not only ordained women but also their supporters that it is difficult to know where to start. And liberalisation, as our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic will attest, is a surefire route to rapid decline in attendance.

There is a lot about the Survey in this link:

http://trushare.com/SURVEY/New%20Survey%20Page%20241003.htm

10 February 2013 22:46  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

It just amazes me that Ivo is so equanimous about what he's suggesting, as if it's an honest split that he's advocating. He is advocating sabotage and subversion, not to mention breaking of the promises given in 1992. Simply astonishing.

10 February 2013 22:55  
Blogger Flossie said...

I do think that surveys give quite an interesting snapshot of prevailing attitudes, likewise statistics, although these can be manipulated - and they completely do my head in, being a bit of a mathematical nitwit, but here is another survey, much more recent - only last year, in fact - and this time of laity rather than clergy.

Some interesting items - fewer than half would like to see women bishops in the C of E as soon as possible. This is in stark contrast to the bench of bishops, and those who would have us think that we are a tiny minority.

Anyhow, rather than me spell them all out, they can be read here:

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/wp-content/uploads/Mind%20of%20Anglicans%20Survey%20and%20Commentary%20Article(3).pdf

10 February 2013 23:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Brother Ivo

I apologize for my lack of precision.

"You" as in "You all" as in the German "Ihr" as in the CoE. I did not intend to personalize the post.

carl

10 February 2013 23:26  
Blogger HolyKraut said...

@Martin: " It is not the Church's role to invent new teachings that are not found in the Bible."
But Martin, the Church does not proclaim what she learnt, understands and is from the bible, she proclaims what she learnt, understands and is from Christ. The bible is part of what she proclaims. The bible is part of her witness, part of her testimony to the truth which is the Word of God, Jesus Christ. 
And Martin, rather than airily proclaim what is and is not the Church's role, perhaps you would have the good manners to first listen attentively to what she has to say about what she understands her role to be.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

10 February 2013 23:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

Non mouse - my previous post disappeared, but I will try again.

You sound like a girl after my own heart as far as the music and liturgy of the church is concerned. I only use the BCP and the KJV now, and prefer my hymns from the English Hymnal or its equivalent. It will be a real grief to me if I have to leave all this behind.

On a personal level I can get along with women priests. I do very occasionally go to a service where I know a woman will be presiding, and sometimes hear a very good sermon. I wouldn't insult her, either, by refusing to receive communion. But I do feel we have to look at the bigger picture, the effect on the whole church, and not just restrict our vision to whether the vicar is nice or not.

10 February 2013 23:33  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Od Ernst prefers the old view of the true church stated by JC Ryle which still has weight all these years later..

3. It is a Church WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON NO MINISTERS UPON EARTH, however much it values those who preach the gospel to its members. The life of its members does not hang upon Church-membership, or baptism, or the Lord's Supper — although they highly value these things when they are to be had. But it has only one Great Head — one Shepherd, one chief Bishop — and that is Jesus Christ. He alone, By His Spirit, admits the members of this Church, though ministers may show the door. Till He opens the door no man on earth can open it — neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods. Once let a man repent and believe the gospel, and that moment he becomes a member of this Church. Like the penitent thief, he may have no opportunity of being baptized; but he has that which is far better than any water-baptism — the baptism of the Spirit. He may not be able to receive the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper;but he eats Christ's body and drinks Christ's blood by faith every day he lives, and no minister on earth can prevent him. He may be ex-communicated by ordained men, and cut off from the outward ordinances of the professing Church; but all the ordained men in the world cannot shut him out of the true Church. It is a Church whose existence does not depend on forms, ceremonies, cathedrals, churches, chapels, pulpits, fonts, vestments, organs, endowments, money, kings, governments, magistrates or any act of favor whatsoever from the hand of man. It has often lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from it. It has often been driven into the wilderness, or into dens and caves of the earth, by those who ought to have been its friends. Its existence depends on nothing but the presence of Christ and His Spirit; and they being ever with it, the Church cannot die.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/truechurch_jcryle.htm

Perhaps if there was another Ryle there maybe a chance to turn back from error but the calling of the world is too great for the C of E and Rome in particular, where all this priest nonsense originated from and continued into the reformation? The church lost it's rags and true doctrines gained from hiding in the caves of persecution to unwittingly wearing the worldly court silks and man made dogmas of 'organised state religion'. A terrible eternal trade off!

Blofeld

I see no biblical expounding of why God has set defined definitive roles for men and women in 'HIS' church except the 'modernising progressive, touchy feely' views expounded by Brother Ivo and the old 'keys, the keys, apostasy clap trap' of the RCC adherents that have helped enormously in developing this deadly disease in the church.

pps

The reason that Jesus never mentions women as priests or rabbi's is that he was a torah observant Jew, speaking to torah observant Jews who KNEW the TORAH!!

Paul expounded the role of Women in the church, distinct from men, for GENTILES (Epistles to Gentles was his speciality and calling) who knew not the Torah.(Insert 'Homosexuality' for 'Women' and you also have the answer why Jesus mentions hardly anything about homosexuality but Paul does...one audience is torah observant Jews (Jesus), the other (Paul) are Gentiles who knew not the Torah)

That the mosaic priesthood was to became extinct in 70AD with the destruction of the temple is irrelevant, the priesthood was terminated at the cross by Christ..there are no more priests except the one true one, who is sitting at the right hand of the Father!

ppps

A bishop is supposed to be married to a woman NOT any other ways around else Paul is not inspired by the Holy Spirit and he has therefore no authority to detail this doctrine of hierarchy in the body. That this offends the modernist is not a reason to leave sound God given commands, is it?

10 February 2013 23:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Blofeld you Christian renegade. Has it not occurred to you that man is a simple beast who needs shepherding ? If it hasn’t, drive your motorised Bath chair onto any high street at a weekend.

Are you content to see these drunken people pleasure themselves with no idea of God ?

The physical infrastructure of the church is their only hope. Let them see it and wonder...

Anyway, it’s about time you ignored what happened at the reformation and re-joined Mother Church – What !



11 February 2013 01:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Some 'Nouvelle théologie' in there Ernsty!

Jesus' words and actions were for the Jews and Paul's for us. Interesting hypothesis.

And based on the writings of JC Ryle (were they infallible?) - the man opposed to 'ritualism' i.e. the sacraments and Holy Communion. Faith and salvation through personal conviction and being "born again", with private bible reading. A new 'theory', indeed.

11 February 2013 01:20  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 February 2013 01:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 February 2013 02:03  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 February 2013 02:21  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dikkie agent provocateur

'Jesus' words and actions were for the Jews and Paul's for us. Interesting hypothesis.' Said no such thing. During His life, Jesus' mission was preaching the Kingdom to the lost sheep of Israel and His contact with gentiles was strictly limited such as Canaanite woman and roman centurion who came to Him regarding healing but both were driven to great shows of faith and thanksgiving in Him. Of the ten lepers cleansed only one came back to praise Him..a Samaritan.
How can Jesus converse with gentiles if His earthly mission is not to them until after His passion, death and resurrection and His declaration to apostles to preach to all nations salvation...hence nearly all His gospel conversations are with torah observant Jews over who He was and His authority!!

In Jeremiah 50:6,

My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away [on] the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.

Jehovah calls Israel His people and “lost sheep.”

The Messiah, spoken of throughout the Old Testament through the prophets , was seen as the anointed one who would gather these “lost sheep” (read Ezekiel 34:23-24; Micah 5:4-5).

When Jesus presented Himself through the gospels as a shepherd to Israel, He was claiming to be the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, their long awaited King.

Matt. 10:5 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles"

Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"

Jesus did not restrain nor forbid the disciples from preaching to all Gentiles; He did, however, direct their concentrated attention to the areas which should be most receptive to his message..those who knew the Law and were expecting the Messiah.

St Paul, as detailed in his missionary journeys throughout Acts and in his epistles, followed the same priority of preaching to the Jews first

Acts 13:46,47

46 It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
47 I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.'"

Romans 1:16

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Jesus limits His ministry and that of His disciples, as long as He was on earth, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Most problems with what most people assume jesus said or did'nt say are easily understood if the historical context is understood such as Jesus not expounding on subjects known by His audience such as adultery etc..They already knew but gentiles were not versed in OT so ST Paul must give a crash course in how God views gentile behaviour and what He expects from us gentiles.

11 February 2013 02:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

[Sorry about the deletions (for correction).]

Flossie, we do agree.
Well said also, Mr. B&T.

Incidentally, while we're on a gender-trender ... I just came across this about the other CoE.

Christopher Booker published in The telegraph about it here(9/2), with a pic of The 47 members of the Council of Europe during the Council of Europe Conference in Brighton last year. In 2010, ministers from the countries agreed on “measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Aha. That's why our CoE is pushing the -ism. Especially since some bish-s spend so much time over there.

Booker and Dr. North keep showing the way: "Got a problem? Cherchez le blue and yellow rag."

11 February 2013 02:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dikkie agent provocateur

'Jesus' words and actions were for the Jews and Paul's for us. Interesting hypothesis.' Said no such thing. During His life, Jesus' mission was preaching the Kingdom to the lost sheep of Israel and His contact with gentiles was strictly limited such as Canaanite woman and roman centurion who came to Him regarding healing but both were driven to great shows of faith and thanksgiving in Him. Of the ten lepers cleansed only one came back to praise Him..a Samaritan.
How can Jesus converse with gentiles if His earthly mission is not to them until after His passion, death and resurrection and His declaration to apostles to preach to all nations salvation...hence nearly all His gospel conversations are with torah observant Jews over who He was and His authority!!

In Jeremiah 50:6,

My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away [on] the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace.

Jehovah calls Israel His people and “lost sheep.”

The Messiah, spoken of throughout the Old Testament through the prophets , was seen as the anointed one who would gather these “lost sheep” (read Ezekiel 34:23-24; Micah 5:4-5).

When Jesus presented Himself through the gospels as a shepherd to Israel, He was claiming to be the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, their long awaited King.

Matt. 10:5 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles"

Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"

Jesus did not restrain nor forbid the disciples from preaching to all Gentiles; He did, however, direct their concentrated attention to the areas which should be most receptive to his message..those who knew the Law and were expecting the Messiah.

St Paul, as detailed in his missionary journeys throughout Acts and in his epistles, followed the same priority of preaching to the Jews first

Acts 13:46,47

46 It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
47 I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth.'"

Romans 1:16

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Jesus limits His ministry and that of His disciples, as long as He was on earth, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Most problems with what most people assume jesus said or did'nt say are easily understood if the historical context is understood such as Jesus not expounding on subjects known by His audience such as adultery etc..They already knew but gentiles were not versed in OT so ST Paul must give a crash course in how God views gentile behaviour and what He expects from us gentiles.

11 February 2013 02:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Brother Ivo

"You also suggest that the money matters to me; you cannot imagine how mistaken that is. They can take their money and go -with my blessing, if they cannot bear to remain within a Church completing the journey it set out on twenty years ago. It is not the money I worry about, having heard Bishop Chad Gandiya speak of the Zimbabwean Church growing when locked out of its Churches .

There are Churches growing the Kingdom headed by women priests. " There was a group across the Tiber about 1600 years ago that 'grew' 'the church' to membership millions, a Church that is still completing the journey it set out on all those years ago with such changes as Prayers for the dead, Veneration of angels and dead saints, The Mass, as a daily celebration, The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", Priests to dress differently from the laity, Extreme Unction, Purgatory , The title of pope or universal bishop, The kissing of the Pope's feet, The Temporal power of the Popes, Worship of the cross, images and relics, Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, Canonization of dead saints, Fasting on Fridays and during Lent, The Mass as a sacrifice, The celibacy of the priesthood, The Rosary, or prayer beads copied from Hindus and Mohammedans, Inquisition of heretics,The sale of Indulgences, The dogma of Transubstantiation, The adoration of the wafer (Host), The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia, The Scapular, forbidding the cup to the laity, The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed (despite Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, That Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible,The apocryphal books, The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, Pope Pius IX then proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility, Pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God", Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary..to mention just a few.

The C of E appears to have learnt nothing from the schism nor new testament stories or historical narratives of ancient Greece and Rome and it's immoral debauchery, except an equal desire to please (modernise?) the world rather than God and make a little spondiddlee on the way. If today's progressive is really history's regressive, so we must ask, what were the epistles really for except promoting unenlightening bigotry? I think not!

Blofeld

11 February 2013 03:13  
Blogger bluedog said...

Brother Ivo, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theory nut, it sometimes pays to stand well back and ask yourself 'what's going on'?

David Cameron is an extremely ambitious man who will clearly stop at nothing to push through his agenda, as the SSM debacle proves. Cameron has already talked about the CofE needing to 'get with the programme' on bishopettes. One can only wonder what has transpired in any phone conversation between Justin Welby and DC following Welby's anti-SSM comments. One hopes Welby was sincere in his opposition to SSM.

For his part, Cameron would regard the CofE Laity position on bishoppettes as being identical to the views of the Tory party association chairmen who delivered a letter condemning SSM to No 10 - pre-dead and irrelevant.

So by endorsing the secularisation of the CofE on Cameron's terms, are you not a pawn in a game that you may not understand?

It seems to this communicant exceedingly unlikely that Cameron will ever dis-establish the CofE. He probably likes it where it is as an instrument of state policy that can be bullied into positions that validate his social agenda.

Putting yourself in Cameron's position, the great frustration with the CofE would be its declining market share and it's complete lack of influence in certain demographics, specifically the Muslims. What to do? Well, if he hasn't already hasn't already had the thought, and if Warsi hasn't done so too, it must be only a matter of time before Cameron establishes a Mosque of England.

The benefits of this would be potentially immense to a ruling elite obsessed with holding power. Suddenly the Muslims are tamed and included in the structure of the British state. CofE churches currently empty or in decay can simply be transferred to the new entity and Islamified.

And nothing is going to empty Anglican churches quicker than slavish pursuit of equality in the form of bishopettes. Look no further than the Episcopalian Church in the USA.

For his part, Dave won't be bothered, he's in communion with a growing demographic, which is every politician's dream.

11 February 2013 08:24  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 February 2013 08:40  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Brother Ivo,

The whole notion of "allowing" women to attend the meeting of Bishops without the right to vote is hugely patronising to the women and the value/role they play in Church.The notion that the Bishops should vote as these women please is also a nonsense. It is also a nonsense that everyone who opposes women priestesses is somehow a sexist out of date dinosaur; there are actually genuine theological and traditionalist grounds for opposing this measure.

The Parish shares are part of the giving of the Church membership to the Church, it is therefore a voluntary matter, so withholding it on a point of principal is to me perfectly legitimate.

I am currently reconsidering my own tithing to the Church- I sometimes feel that there might be better ways to give my tithe to other causes, which are more practical and beneficial to society- than to give it to the Church which happily takes the cash and then trashes everything it used to stand for.

The other matter is why should the Anglo-Catholics, Evangelicals and other Orthodox Anglicans be forced to leave the Church because of women Vicars? That is very un-Anglican.

I also think the way in which people come to be in favour of women Vicars/Bishops is either by dismissing Church tradition and then the Bible, or both, these are two of the major parts of the Church of England, the Anglo Catholic and the Evangelical. But what other bits are going to be thrown out because they no longer fit in with modern society?

Where does this leave the source of the Church's 'Moral' authority? When the Archbishops speak out against gay marriage, what do they use other than tradition and the Bible? Yes it is this stance I really find difficult to swallow- the lack of consistency.

If you allow women bishops and vicars, then allow gay marriage, gay clergy; let's marry divorcees in Church, let's just do away with Christianity fully stop, because it is too old and out of date, shall we not turn the Church into a giant disco party,trendy guitar playing hippie vicars and let the next ABC be a married lesbian atheist with 2 children!

Or failing that, let's get Danjo into the top post- he is an atheist, a gay, a John Stuart Mill liberal who wants a secularist state. A perfect candidate for the new version of the C of E!

11 February 2013 08:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

So what the liberals failed to achieve through democratic means – is now being implemented by stealth.

‘Having read the objections to women's ministry presented in that way, together with his approach to marital governance in general, one thing is clear: hell will freeze over before he and those holding such views – and the few necessary votes in the General Synod – change their minds and accept any form of female authority anywhere near them or the congregations over which they have authority.’

Brother Ivo

‘The key issue relates to the use of the phrase “in a manner that respects.” We cannot interpret it without understanding the broader context. It is hard to hear an institution such as the Synod offer “respect” at the same time as it is preparing to renege on promises made to us 20 years ago supposedly “in perpetuity”. How can trust flourish when what you currently have is being removed and the proposal that it is to be replaced with is something much weaker? Further how do we understand the word “respect” in the context where female members of Reform are being publicly belittled and insulted in the media by people wishing to support this Measure? “Respect” is an honourable word but within a specifically legal context it is a word which is being asked to bear too great a weight. In legal documents trust is built though the use of clarity in language rather than vague imprecise generalities. “Respect” is a fine word but in this context and with this background it feels slightly hollow.’

Rev Angus Macleay of St Nicholas Church, Sevenoaks

11 February 2013 08:54  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Carl,

Thank you for the gracious response.

Sadly there is imprudent personalisation on the Internet, and it is easy to overlook the need to separate the wheat from the chaff.

One of the features of when you put a novel idea " out there" is that the approvers move on and the opponents come thick and fast.

Not all critics seek to denigrate, and that too needs to be remembered.

11 February 2013 09:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Br Ivo – this could all get out of hand.

What the equality for women bishops demands is for us to accept the following: that the Son because He obeyed His Father’s will, must have an inferior nature; the Bible evidences that the Son carried out His Father’s commands – therefore, presumably, He cannot be fully God.

Daft.

11 February 2013 10:28  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Responding to Brother Carl caused a further reflection.

Suggesting a separation does not mean casting into the outer darkness.

We can still work study pray and break bread together. I will be happy to do that with " traditionalists" though they will feel unable to if the president is linked to a woman ordaining bishop. All that will have changed in the big picture is that those of one interpretation can hold to their traditional understanding those of a different view will not be held back from fulfilling the theological approach which has already been determined in 1992.

11 February 2013 10:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

YOU may be happy to do that, Brother Ivo, but I can assure you that the ladies of WATCH will not!

11 February 2013 10:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

D. Singh said...11 February 2013 10:28

Indeed! but it appears by Brother Ivo's responses here that the 'touchy feely progressives' do not do biblical interpretation, only what seems 'right' in their eyes. It cannot be long before the term 'Father' and 'Son' are dismissed as divisive and offensive to the new progressive wing and all references are removed from sight and sound from HIS Church.

It is called the long broad road to perdition and for good cause!

Blofeld

11 February 2013 10:52  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Good Lord.


The Pope has resigned willingly per BBC 24!!

Blofeld

11 February 2013 10:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Brother Ivo,

Suggesting a separation does not mean casting into the outer darkness.

But when you are talking about clergy, you are talking about making families homeless. You are talking about putting your own brothers and sisters in a position where they have to choose between their parishes and their consciences. This is a very serious matter and I don't see that you are treating it as such.

11 February 2013 14:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lavendon: "Or failing that, let's get Danjo into the top post- he is an atheist, a gay, a John Stuart Mill liberal who wants a secularist state. A perfect candidate for the new version of the C of E!"

Ironically, I think I'm too manly to be a cleric. Perhaps too manly to be a Christian too if one considers the stereotype of a Christian man.

11 February 2013 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, how can one put this to you without being condemned by you as a blog thrasher. Anyway here it is. A desire to have sex with other men is not manly at at all. It’s queer behaviour.

11 February 2013 17:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

Of course us girls can multi task, although to me I only undertake Inspector's check, if they are anything like the gorgeous laura tobin!

11 February 2013 17:59  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

I think you have to take Lord Lavendon with a big pinch of salt- he is very old and stuck in his ways, usually to the right of centre (but never a fascist- never call uncle a fascist 'cause he'll go mad!).

When he learned that a child had been attacked by a fox in London, he had dressed up in his bright red coat, had saddled his horse and was proposing to send a hunt to London in order to clear out the foxes, at 6.00 am, until he was told that is illegal.

Still, he is a lovely man and has a kind heart, who loves his family. But he is quite a conservative and right wing guy, however, I wouldn't say a word against him.

11 February 2013 18:08  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 February 2013 20:56  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I'd agree with that -Lord Lavendon is a Ger toshav/chasid umot ha'olam- so need say no more...

despite his more dogmatic polemics here, he is a kind hearted gentleman, who can't help being stuck in an age in which his whole social and political outlook upon life has been changed within a decade.

11 February 2013 20:58  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Sorry , having to sign off now as Mrs K is tickling me !

11 February 2013 20:59  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

David,

Of course, matters of the family are most important - hopefully I shall be alive to witness grand nephew XXX.

11 February 2013 21:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Ironically, I think I'm too manly to be a cleric. Perhaps too manly to be a Christian too if one considers the stereotype of a Christian man."

What a truly crass comment. Have you any idea of the bravery of Christians over 2000 years? Do you know what true manhood actually consists of?

Too manly, indeed!

12 February 2013 01:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Crikey, Dodo, those pearls certainly get a lot of clutching these days! Have you ever considered a career in the theatre? Figure of manhood? Well, I doubt it's a sort of spiteful, judgemental version of Derek Nimmo, which is the stereotype I was talking about.

12 February 2013 05:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Only Dodo could get so outraged and camp about the Christian male stereotype not being very manly. Lol.

12 February 2013 05:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Derek who? Must be part of that Great Oxymoron called 'British Comedy.' (Monty Python excepted.) You certainly don't find that stereotype in the US very often. Here we are stereotyped as psychopathic killer and hyper-controlling wife beaters - usually dirt ignorant and always hypocrites. But you don't see much of the weak effeminate male.

Media stereotypes of religious believers (especially Christians) actually say far more about the script writer than his subject. They obviously don't know the subject - which explains why they never get the voice right. Ever. I listen to TV portrayals and I think "Does the writer think people actually talks like that?" They don't know how we think. They don't know how we act. They don't understand our motivations. Other than that, they do I great job. I guess.

But then you remember that script writers by and large have no connection to religion or religious people and are constructing fantasy characters from their own imagination. They probably wouldn't call it stereotyping because ... well .. progressives don't stereotype, now do they. They would probably call it an accurate expression of a reactionary lifestyle.

carl

12 February 2013 06:10  
Blogger Martin said...

HK

The Church is the gathered people of God, not a sect that has abandoned the teaching of the Bible for its own opinions. The Bible is not authored by a church but by God, who uses men as His instruments to write what He pleases. The people of God on Earth are responsible to God to handle His Word rightly and to proclaim His gospel of "the forgiveness of sin to those who believe" not to claim the Bible as their own.

12 February 2013 13:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "You certainly don't find that stereotype in the US very often. Here we are stereotyped as psychopathic killer and hyper-controlling wife beaters - usually dirt ignorant and always hypocrites."

I expect that's because they're layered over another stereotype over there. I think ours is quite accurate as it goes, having been to a number of churches in my time and come across a number of work colleagues of that persuasion. Of course, it's just a stereotype at the end of the day. Perhaps the manly ones over here keep their religion to themselves in real life so they don't look too wimpy.

12 February 2013 17:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Not that I watch Eastenders, I'd rather gnaw my own foot off than get trapped in a room with that on, but the character Dot Cotton captures some of it. That said, it's a fairly sympathetic portrayal in the scheme of things.

12 February 2013 17:11  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

I think ours is quite accurate as it goes, having been to a number of churches in my time and come across a number of work colleagues of that persuasion.

Interesting. In my experience, it is wildly inaccurate, although considerably less so than the characature I see so often in the media. I have never met but maybe one such person, and even his inclusion would depend upon the exact nature of the stereotype you are employing. Perhaps there is some difference in the nature of the churches involved.

carl

12 February 2013 18:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

ahem ... "caricature."


I blame Microsoft

12 February 2013 18:56  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Carl/Danjo,

Here goes my list of top ten sterotypes :

1. Yanks (as Americans are called) are loud, gun tootin' oafs that stole "our" language... but at the same time,All Americans are generally considered to be friendly, generous, and tolerant, but also arrogant, impatient, and domineering... but All white Americans(AKA the "Yank") are obese, lazy, and dim-witted, a la Homer Simpson.

2. Germans have no sense of humour.

3. The Irish are comical and stupid, drunks and eat potatoes

4. Scots are tight with their money and play bagpipes.

5. Us Jews - or "Talmudic" Jews,are inbreed,greedy money grubbers who secretly run the world.

6. Gay men are camp and speak with a lisp in their voice- a la Gok Wann.

7. Gay women are all butch.

8. Italian or French people are the best lovers

9. All librarians are women who are old, wear glasses, tie a high bun, and have a perpetual frown on their face.

10.All politicians are philanders and think only of personal gain and benefit.

LOL, LOL , LOL!

12 February 2013 19:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Also irony, apparently the actress who plays the Christian 'Dot Cotton' is half Jewish; not that I've ever met a chain smoking Evanglical Anglican Christian...

12 February 2013 19:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0##Define the term "manly".

Does it include becoming "Icky" at heterosexual sex images; going all weepy at the thought of the natural suffering of animals; or using terms such as "Lordy!" and "Crikey!" - not forgetting the wearing of Gold Lame Hotpants.

12 February 2013 20:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you complete feckwit, the hotpants thing was irony. That is, it was deliberately playing on a gay stereotype. Are you autistic or something? There are times when I'd put money on your being on the spectrum.

12 February 2013 20:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Incidentally, don't think I didn't snort when I saw you simpering over your sidekick when he was calling the Christian subject of the thread below a tart, an internet whore, and so on. After all you've said about abuse around here, where was your repugnance when he was doing that? Let me tell you. It was nowhere to be seen because you don't really give a crap, you fecking despicable hypocrite. You simply indulge yourself in internet theatre when you adopt your outrage. I'd say you have no integrity but, well, it's been said so many times it may as well be written in boilerplate at the top of the blog page.

12 February 2013 20:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

I say DanJ0, for someone claiming to be "too manly" you're behaving like a hysterical toddler. And such bitterness too and what a foul mouth.

Do calm down, you'll embarrass yourself.

12 February 2013 21:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Try to deflect it all you like, you have no defense to that charge. What a miserable, scratty little man you are.

12 February 2013 21:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Now see here, you sexual freak. Butt out of posts that criticise others and do not concern you. Is that absolutely clear ?

12 February 2013 21:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 asked ...

"Incidentally, don't think I didn't snort when I saw you simpering over your sidekick when he was calling the Christian subject of the thread below a tart, an internet whore, and so on. After all you've said about abuse around here, where was your repugnance when he was doing that?"

Snort? Oh dear, recreational purposes, I suppose.

Repugnance? I really don't do repugnance in such circumstances.

The Way of Dodo said...
"Inspector
Maybe it was a mistake to call her (Ms Dawn) a "tart", an "internet whore" and to suggest she uses her female "bits" to marry and have children."

(10 February 2013 14:54)

You do understand the Inspectors style, do you? Perhaps not. It takes a certain level of intelligence and wit to properly appreciate his comments.

12 February 2013 21:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Yes, definitely on the spectrum.

12 February 2013 21:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

At least it was just simpering over him. You appear to be almost rimming the one on the other thread. Have you no self-respect, Dodo? If you were within kicking range then you'd get a swift boot from me for that level of obsequiousness.

12 February 2013 21:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

The Boy-Man DanJ0 has a mind like a cesspit. Still, not quite as bad as some earlier obscene posts.

Perhaps the blog owner might consider deleting the above reference to one of the more disgusting, animal like behaviours of the sexually perverted.

12 February 2013 21:54  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace would rather this just stopped. Honestly, just stop it.

Dodo, you have written in another thread:

"Yes, we can certainly expect some *interesting* articles and *erudite* commentary over the next few weeks. I see from Twitter the blog owner is warming up nicely."

You evidenly present yourself every single day in order to seek out something to decide to be offend by. Nothing here is to your edification, which is unsurprising because the blog is Anglican. Why do you not just go in search of 'erudite' commentary on a Roman Catholic blog?

12 February 2013 22:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

It has stopped, Sir.

Whilst I may disagree with some comments on here nothing has offended me in recent time and there is much here that I find edifying.

The blog is Anglican, for sure, but this is a broad church welcoming one and all.

12 February 2013 22:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older