Women Bishops

[tree_and_leaf]

Well, I have to say, I didn't expect that - I was guessing that either the whole thing would fall through or that they'd go for the super-bishops position.

Am I pleased? Well, yes. I've said on several occasions that I think that the previous position was ridiculous, and that it couldn't go on indefinitely. And I know I would have felt frustrated and hurt if they had voted against the possibility.

And no. It's got a bitter taste, because it's going to be divisive, and - in some ways more to the point - both sides have in some cases behaved very badly. I know I have sometimes been very uncharitable, without even noticing, about 'the other side'. That's the trouble, of course - once it becomes about 'us' and 'them', it's far too easy to attribute disgraceful motives to 'them', whether it be knee-jerk reaction/ misogyny or putting the zeitgeist above God's will and the needs of the church/ ambition.

Umph. I suppose the tone of theological debate was no better in the early church. Does that make it better or worse? It's not exactly the City of God, anyway.

ETA: link to the Ekklesia press release on the subject, with the motion in full and the voting, which was surprisingly clear-cut. I had forgotten that this will have to be ratified by parliament (the joys of establishment), but I doubt in the circumstances that this will lead to a repeat of the 1924 prayer book debacle. I suppose the big question is what exactly is going to be in the mysterious code of conduct....

Comments

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

Sadly, I feel that any of the options would have been divisive.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes,I'm afraid that's true. How long can you go on trying to unreconcile the unreconcialble? And how long should you try?

I keep thinking, it's a bit like divorce, which does not cheer me up in the slightest.

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

As I said elsewhere, I think it was probably time for a decisive outcome one way or another. 'Super' bishops would have been a placatory gesture that ultimately satisfied no-one. There would have been talk of 'second-class' bishops and 'misogynist' enclaves and, eventually, the position would have to shift and we'd be in the same place we are now.

It goes against all anglican instincts to draw a definite line, but perhaps in the end it'll be for the best.

*deep breath before we start on the homosexuals debate*

[tree_and_leaf]

'Super' bishops would have been a placatory gesture that ultimately satisfied no-one. There would have been talk of 'second-class' bishops and 'misogynist' enclaves and, eventually, the position would have to shift and we'd be in the same place we are now.

Which was why, intellectually, I was against the idea. But I know what you mean about it going against all Anglican instincts!

but perhaps in the end it'll be for the best.

I hope and pray so. I don't know that that's entirely deserved - but then that hasn't got anything to do with it (thank God).

*deep breath before we start on the homosexuals debate*

Indeed. We're living in interesting times at the moment, aren't we?

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

If every church got what it deserved, Westboro Baptist would be smoking charred wreck by now, and most of the rest of us wouldn't be faring much better.

I don't Anglicans are best suited to interesting times, which is odd when you consider the history.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

Of course there's going to be controversy, at least until the older generation that can't abide female priests and bishops dies off or retires. That's what is happening in America, and it's inevitable in Britain as well. But better to have controversy than to treat women as second-class citizens, IMHO....

May it all die down eventually, God willing.

[tree_and_leaf]

Well, the controversy is inevitable, whether you like it or not, I think. It's not entirely generational, though - I know people my age (i.e. twenty somethings) who are vehemently anti-women priests. Of course, in some cases the opposition dies down when they actually come into contact with women clergy, but some people just aren't going to change their minds...

It'll die down eventually. The question is how much bad blood it will leave, and how many people will actually leave the church.

[liadnan]

Out of interest, do you have a sense of what the balance of wings (if that is a remotely supportable image) left in the CofE might be if a large proportion of the antis did head off Tiberwards? Ie is there much of a High Church left (clearly there are some)? Though I suppose any such analysis is all moot anyway until one has a sense of what the real fallout from Lambeth&Gafcon will be (if that lot is going to have a significant impact on the CofE, as opposed to the Anglican Communion generally, something else on which I am unclear).

Damian Thompson (who I cannot stand, but his gossip is probably accurate more than half the time) writes that Bishops Burnham and Newton have already talked to Cardinals Kasper (of the Christian Unity brief) and Levada (of the CDF) about possibilities for them and those who choose to follow them coming over as a group and presumably maintaining some coherent identity. But my ill-informed impression is that even within Anglo-Catholic anti-WO groups there is no consensus about what happens now, so I have no clue how many they might be speaking for.

[lucullean.livejournal.com]

your feelings are totally mine (the "oh it's good that it has happened at last" as well as the "oh, depressing that it will cause controversy")

[tree_and_leaf]

The shit won't really hit the fan until they publish this code of practice - though it hasn't even been written yet, so it could take a while.

I suppose the question is, how many people are going to go over to Rome (a bit of a mixed blessing for Rome, or at least bits of it). I observe from Facebook stalking that a lot of my conservative friends are v upset but currently staying put (albeit grumbling about 'haters').

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

Looking at your leader-icon and wondering what Obadiah would have had to say on the matter.

Ironically, I would think Mrs Proudie would be dead against female Bishops.

[tree_and_leaf]

They'd both be dead against it, on the basis of Paul (and, without admitting it to themselves, because Mr Slope would regard it as a threat, and Mrs Proudie would think it unnecessary....)

The Archdeacon would also be outraged, but he'd probably end up by muttering something along the lines of not actually making any difference in Barchester!

[overconvergent.livejournal.com]

[wonders how to square Mrs Proudie with 1 Timothy 2:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Tim++2:12): "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."]

[grondfic.livejournal.com]

"The Bishop thinks ..... and I agree with him ...."

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, that too!

[tree_and_leaf]

I think Mrs Proudie was quite good at achieving authority over Mr Proudie with the silent treatment as well, so goodness alone knows - I think that comes under the heading of squaring the circle!

(Though I dare say Mrs P would have said the authority meant some sort of official position in the church, as opposed to the help and advice it was her duty to give her, ahem, lord and master...)

[thealmondtree.livejournal.com]

the voting, which was surprisingly clear-cut (except in the episcopate)

Well the vote of 28 For, 12 Against with 1 Abstention, is a 2/3rds majority, which is hardly not clear-cut. It also got a 2/3rds majority in the clergy but not the laity.

[tree_and_leaf]

True. I always was rubbish with numbers.

I wonder who the abstention was?

[lucullean.livejournal.com]

yeah, the abstention seems like my kind of individual.