Am nervously awaiting news of the General Synod vote on women bishops

[tree_and_leaf]

And on the other hot button issue of the day, an interesting consideration of Hooker and the Anglican approach to the uses and abuses of the Bible in defining ethical laws, with particular reference to homosexuality from the Archbishop of Armagh. From which I chiefly take that the authentic Anglican response to many an apparently black-and-white dilemma is not precisely 'we must produce an artificial grey in compromise!' as simply 'actually, it's more complicated than that'. An attitude which I think is fairly admirable, because what matters is finding the truth and following it, rather than jumping to conclusions, though I admit it's not the sort of attitude which makes it easy to gather a large party of followers - or indeed to rapid decision making. But you're never going to get that within the Anglican communion anyway, because it's too decentralised. The Anglican communion doesn't have a Pope-figure, however much some people seem to wish that the Archbishop of Canterbury should be one (how much they'd actually like it if they got it is debatable) - actually, if it's comparable to any mediaeval model, it's that of the Eastern church, where the various Patriarchs didn't out-rank each other and could not force decisions on each other's churches, even if Constantinople did sometimes come close to being the leader they didn't have...

ETA: The Bishop of Buckinghamshire sums up pretty much exactly what I feel at the moment. I don't want there to be a schism, and I'll be sad to see some of the antis I know personally walk out, if that's what they do - but the situation simply cannot go on as it is, because it is stopping the church doing what it's there for, to show God's love to the world.

Comments

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I liked that article, but I think his final point about the 'naturalness' or otherwise of homosexuality/homosexual acts is a bit of a red herring. There are plenty of 'natural' things that are sinful (some people are born with terrible tempers, for instance, and just have to learn to control it as best they can. We're fallen beings) so I'm not sure even if one could prove that homosexuality is 'natural' it would make much difference.

[eta: I do take his point in relation to that particular Romans passage - it's just that I've seen the natural/unnatural argument discussed to death recently, and I think in most circs it's a red herring)

I think a lot of people who are agitating for a more pope-like archbish would be extremely discomfited were they to get one.

I'm also waiting somewhat nervously for news. I'm not quite sure what I want the outcome to be, which doesn't help. (I can't decide whether it's time we took a decisive stand on women priests and basically told the dissenters to deal with it or leave, or whether some fudging with alternative oversight would be better...)

[tree_and_leaf]

I'm not quite sure what I want the outcome to be, which doesn't help

I've just read the Bishop of Buckingham's blog post on the subject, and he more or less sums up my feelings on the matter: the current situation is not sustainable, but I am not going to walk away from the church, whatever happens today - and I'm also cowardly enough to be grateful that I'm not having to vote on it.... http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2008/07/female-bishops-new-skins-new-wine.html


[eta: I do take his point in relation to that particular Romans passage - it's just that I've seen the natural/unnatural argument discussed to death recently, and I think in most circs it's a red herring)

Yeah. The trouble is that people aren't clear about what 'natural' means, and whether or not this is the same as innocent - a dodgy assumption, given both Christian teaching about the Fall and common or garden obesrvation.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I think the time for the antis to walk was when we ordained women, as it was pretty clear where it was heading. (You just can't have female priests but not bishops, it makes no sense). I shall be sad at the pain caused to some friends of mine, but the situation is unsustainable, I think. (Even more so than the homosexuality issue, because there there is no question of 'taint')

[tree_and_leaf]

Oh absolutely. I disagree with (say) Ann Widecombe, but I have a great deal of respect for her for going over to Rome on the issue. Priests-but-not-bishops is simply idiotic as a position on the matter.

[liadnan]

From our side of the Tiber, though, there was a strong feeling among some that conversion over the single issue of women priests indicated a serious lack of appreciation of what they were going to as opposed to from. Some might say Miss Widdecombe was a particular exemplar of this...

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, I can see that (and I guess you won't be thrilled if yesterday's decision leads to large numbers of - for some reason I want to say defections, which is definitely not the right term). Shall I say rather that I respect the decision to go (which is not an easy thing to do) - without further commenting on her attitude to her new church?

[liadnan]

Well, in the end I guess we should welcome all with generosity of spirit. (And the ordination of women is probably not going to be reconsidered for at least 50 years here anyway, in my view, certainly not under this pope - for whom I nevertheless have a great deal more respect than I thought I would.)

Certainly I agree it must be a painful decision to leave.

[tree_and_leaf]

I have mixed feelings towards the current Pope. On the one hand, he reminds me strongly of why I am happy to be Anglican, but I nonetheless respect him greatly. It certainly doesn't hurt that he's a good theologian.

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

where the various Patriarchs didn't out-rank each other and could not force decisions on each other's churches,

Someone really needs to remind Peter Jensen of this.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yep. He's in flagrant breach of the traditions, not just of Anglicanism, but of the church as a whole.

... remind me why the reactionaries get to be the traditionalists again?

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

remind me why the reactionaries get to be the traditionalists again?

There's a West Wing quote that I can't quite remember, but I'm pretty sure it's Oliver Babish and involves the phrase "but instead we [the liberals] cowered in terror and said 'don't hurt me!'" ETA: It's not Babish, it's Ron Silver's character, the campaign manager who ends up working for Vinick./ETA

In other words, because the reactionaries believe that they and only they are right, they have the courage of their convictions. Because liberals brains work in a way that says "I'm fairly sure I'm right, but I might not be, because I haven't put myself in the shoes of every other person in the world"... it takes us too long to explain ourselves and thus people stop listening.

Or that's my theory at the moment, anyway.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

There is also perhaps the fact that liberals lay themselves open to being accused of being 'just as intolerant as the [whatever the opposite of 'liberal' is today] side'. And liberals are often in danger of falling either on the 'who cares if we disagree, let's all just hug!' or 'everyone who disagrees with me is a conservative bigot' extremes if they try to make a definite decision.

(That said, I'm definitely on the liberal side of the debate here. And how far should you 'tolerate' misogyny - if that's what you/I/we think the continued opposition to OOW boils down to/results in.)

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, there's something in that. Also, as far as the 'who is a traditionalist' question goes, the answer is really 'both and neither' - because both groups have a legitimate claim to recurs to tradition, it's just they give priority to different bits.

if that's what you/I/we think the continued opposition to OOW boils down to/results in.

I think it results in misogyny, but it boils down to the same issue as the homosexuality question (not that everyone is consistently pro or anti on both questions), that is, the question of scriptural authority and how you interpret it.

[overconvergent.livejournal.com]

The hymn at yesterday's patronal festival at SMR had the refrain "One Church, One Faith, One Lord" which I think was a brave although possibly doomed sentiment. (We also read in a new lady priest, so I think that we will be staying put ...).

[tree_and_leaf]

IIRC*, '"Thy Hand, O Lord, Has Guided" was originally written as a low church party hymn during the ritualism controversies, but has entirely transcended that, and is actually a rather good hymn for Difficult Times in the church... (and when aren't they, really?)


* My Google-fu has failed me, and I don't have the book I know I could check this in to hand...

Well, I've no doubt we disagree on many things.

[wemyss.livejournal.com]

I do wish that my lord the Bp of Bucks cd manage tosay something better than 'I wish they had been able to come up with some way of locating their convctions aganst female bishops in some bigger moral framework, in which there was some positive candle, apart from reactionary fear and hurt feelings.'

I'm getting a trifle tired, actually, of being called 'a fearful reactionary motivated hurt feelings and bereft of a moral framework' by various bishops and sons-of-bishops.

Re: Well, I've no doubt we disagree on many things.

[tree_and_leaf]

The worst aspect of all this is the amount of hurt and bitterness it's created on both sides, which isn't helping people to keep their tempers - and I wouldn't dream of trying to argue that the pro-women's ordination side has always behaved in the spirit of Christian charity. I probably ought to include myself in that.

I do think, though - and I don't take any pleasure in it - that the current position is untenable, largely because it makes no sense to say that women can be priests but not bishops. You can argue for both or for neither for honourable reasons, but the compromise we've got doesn't make any theological sense, and doesn't, as far as I can tell, satisfy either party. I don't, though, take any pleasure in the perfectly genuine pain that will result from alteration to the status quo.

Re: Well, I've no doubt we disagree on many things.

[overconvergent.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that it's a theologically weak position, and that no-one really likes it, but lurching violently either way seems equally bad to me ... my natural tendency to be Fabius Cunctator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus) makes me want to say "wait another year, maybe someone will have a really good idea to solve the problem". The current mess doesn't seem to be affecting us on the ground here (unless I am completely blind and deaf to its effects, which is of course possible).

Re: Well, I've no doubt we disagree on many things.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

It's undoubtedly no more true that anyone anti-OOW is a reactionary misogynist bigot than pro-OOW are godless libruls whoare hellbent on pandering to contemporary culture and couldn't care less about scripture or the gospel.

There's been some ghastly behaviour from both 'sides', really - but I do agree with tree-and-leaf that the current situation makes no sense and is the worst sort of 'compromise'. Something's got to give sooner or later.

Re: Well, I've no doubt we disagree on many things.

[overconvergent.livejournal.com]

various bishops and sons-of-bishops

It sounds like something from Anthony Trollope to me...

The statement you quoted doesn't sound like he was trying to win over those on "the other side", and I do not agree with it (as someone on the vaguely liberal side). Things are fraught enough already without us sniping at each other :(

On the other hand, it seems like an odd ditch to want to die in; I can understand (and agree with) complaints that my wing of the Church seems to have forgotten about the Great Commission, say, but the female bishops issue is not the one I would have chosen to nail my colours to the mast over.

[thealmondtree.livejournal.com]

According to the BBC at 22:44 BST

Church will ordain women bishops

The Church of England's ruling body, the General Synod, has voted to confirm the ordination of women as bishops.

But a national code to accommodate traditionalists was approved by the Synod, which was meeting in York.

Some 1,300 clergy have threatened to leave the Church if safeguards are not agreed to reassure traditionalists.

They made the threat in a letter to the archbishops of Canterbury and York, but critics say many of the signatories are retired rather than serving clergy.

Now we await the details.

[tree_and_leaf]

Thanks for linking to that - now we wait to see where the bits fall, I suppose!

I'm pleased about the decision, but also a bit apprehensive.