“I’m glad that we have not ended up with a political compromise and the committee has instead ceded to the will of the people.”

Feminist Triumphalism run amok and accorded the highest honor imaginable to the speaker.  You’ll note that God is again left out by the assumption that She is happy with the resultant fracture.  Which raises Hosea’s concerns about idols (See chapter 14.)

When will “disaffected” be dropped as an adjective?  And the idea that the ABC is actually holding together the Communion?  What Communion?  We Anglican Catholics have not had our home for nearly 480 years.  Now, those of us dubbed disaffected do have a way to return to that home.  And we will.  With affection.

The Church of England may be beginning the path of the slow descent into chaos carved so expertly by The Episcopal Church. So sad when the leading church doesn’t.

Comment deleted for encouraging people to leave a church

Bless you COLUMCIL!

The whole scenario strikes me as being orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. At the same time the pope is clearly working at finding creative and open-handed ways to welcome and embrace Anglicans who want to be part of the undivided Church Christ prayed for—Anglican Church leaders harden in their liberalism and Modernism probably driving away many of its most sincere and devoted members. Oh well!! Canterbury’s loss is Rome’s gain.

6.  As John Paul II once said, “In the designs of Providence, there is no such thing as coincidence.”

And the old saying still rings true, “When God closes one door he opens another.”

How wicked! The C of E chooses to de-church those members whose only fault is to believe and hold dear what the church has always taught in every age. A code of practice cannot do and will be flimsy and hopeless for those who stay.

However- as others have said- it actually helps open the eyes fully. Discernment is not necessary any longer- only a fool needs to think now. What is needed is courage to walk into the new pasture which the Pope is so graciously offering

In order for any legislation to be passed it will be necessary for it to pass a two thirds majority in all houses of Synod and the earliest this will come in is 2012.  Do you think this action [or shall we say inaction] by the Revision Committee makes that more or less likely?

We are seeing a play for power by liberals: WATCH and Rowan Williams’ Affirming Catholicism.  If they can get the liberal women currently shortlisted for women bishops consecrated [some of whom it is claimed on Thinking Anglicans are practicing lesbians] then it will swing the church leftwards and with Anglo-Catholic departures open the way for full TEC style SSU’s [we would have already have had gay partnered bishops via some of the women bishops].  Like FCA, liberals know that the CofE is a prize which they can use for their ambitions for the Communion.  Unfortunately no one cares particularly for us members of the CofE.

So what has happened with this decision by this Rowan Williams & Co. created committee?
1. The necessity of the Pope’s interfering offer has been vindicated, for we are becoming an intolerant TEC-like church with a total vacuum of leadership for the whole church from Rowan Williams and our bishops;
2. The FCA demand that the Church of England protect the interests of traditional Anglicans has been ignored:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=16521
Claims that the interference of FCA are unwelcome or unnecessary have proved to be completely false.
3. It may be that we will now see what will be made of Reform’s comment that Anglo-Catholics need not go to Rome if they so wish because FCA is here now:
http://www.reform.org.uk/pages/press/latestpress.php
4. The request made by the Global South Council to Rowan Williams has been ignored:
“We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.”
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/weblog/comments/pastoral_exhortation/

So fighting talk from the WATCH/AffCath bunch.  Of course it was unlikely that Rowan Williams’ committee would come up with anything different - as usual he had packed it - half women even though women clergy are only 15% of the priesthood.

Of course many liberals, and maybe a good part of our establishment would love Anglo-Catholics to just head off towards a Roman dawn; what they truly FEAR is FCA.

So not good for our unity as a church; but we see our liberal establishment for what they are.

Well 2012 and two thirds majorities are probably more remote than they were a week ago, but the temperature has risen, even though there is no immediate pressure on anyone to do anything.  Does it make the Covenant more or less likely as we see this liberal/inclusive attack on the Church of England by Affirming Catholics and WATCH?  Well they presumably hope less so, for that is what they FEAR.

The reality is that what happens now on the Covenant may well make all the rest moot. 

I am not sure where all the above thoughts lead, but that is the best I can make of this mess at the moment as we dig ourselves in deeper.  Very sad for the church which I love and probably a disaster for its mission.

Time for cool heads and some strategic thinking at all levels.

Time for cool heads and some strategic thinking at all levels.

Yet I sense a new stridency in #9 that I have not yet seen from Pageantmaster, and also a stronger stridency from Rugbyplayingpriest in #8.

The cracks are widening.

Stridency Brer?  I do stridency!

“The cracks are widening” - much to the consternation of Christopher Robin.  [Now there are some good books for the young ‘uns.]

There is a very interesting commentary on all this by David Phillips of Church Society this morning:
http://www.evangelicals.org/news.asp?id=1077

I agree with his last comment summing up:

Therefore, there are many people who are in favour of women Bishops in principle, but not at any cost.  If the revised legislation does not make adequate provision, and at present it will not do so, then this makes it more likely that the legislation will be rejected.

Frankly we need this like a hole in the head.

I think my advice to the Anglo-Cathlolics would be this:  If you feel called to be Roman Catholic by God then you must of course follow where God is leading you.

However, if you wish to continue as Anglicans and as Anglo-Catholics, there are liberals like Affirming Catholicism, maybe even Rowan Williams and WATCH who would love to see you go now, but only to Rome; on no account are you to go to FCA or have anything to do with them, as that would be unfair and not playing the game as far as they are concerned.

I would encourage you not to make decisions in anger and hurt, to stay while you are assessing your options, and stay and play a full part along with evangelicals in the life of the church and building it up.  The reality is that the Christian life has been and is subject to constant persecution from without, and now in the CofE from within.  Continue to play a full part in the political life of the church, continue putting your point of view, as the excellent Fr Ed Tomlinson is doing, in the national press, on liberal blogs and here.  Be noisy and awkward, but always courteous.  Make your point to anyone who will listen much as the intolerant ladies of WATCH do.  And look at the position in your diocese, get yourselves onto diocesan Synod and make your points there, and get yourselves onto General Synod.  Blog and link into other blogs.  Write to your bishop and to Rowan, do not let the latter get away with the lamentable failure of leadership that he has honed on the Communion and now brought to the Church of England.  And talk to us.

Do not go quietly into that good night.

[there Brer - is that strident enough for you?]

Pageantmaster: “If they can get the liberal women currently shortlisted for women bishops consecrated…”

But have you noticed that none of the large Conservative Evangelical churches are ever headed by women? So where are the women bishops going to come from if not from the liberal ones? I think this tells you more about Con Evo churches than anything else - they tend to be run by a certain sort of power-obsessed man, and most women are not interested in the childish boys’ games that ensue from such skewed structures. I am longing for the day when the missing voices of women are present at last in the Church’s senior tier: they are simply necessary for it to be balanced.

[edited]

RE: “Are we in for yet another tabloid style season of horrified straight men salivating over the details, I wonder?”

Not at all.  Merely committed Christians—women too—who are saddened over the sin and corruption and heresy of the faux Christians.

Please keep this discussion on topic - those which stray off it will be removed.

I will try again.  Maybe this will be acceptable.

But have you noticed that none of the large Conservative Evangelical churches are ever headed by women? So where are the women bishops going to come from if not from the liberal ones?

There are quite a few conservative women priests; I have spoken to a number, but they do not find a home either in organisations like WATCH or feel particularly comfortable in some of the conservative organisations. And they are treated like pariahs by some of their liberal “sisters” and by liberal clergy in their dioceses. One has to remember that half of the women priests did not sign up to the WATCH letter; they contain many women who would make excellent bishops but they do not make the intolerant noise that WATCH makes. You might find them in organisations like AWESOME. From
what I have seen many large evangelical churches have women ministering.  However some don’t.

Some English reaction over the w/e:
Evangelicals:
Rev John Richardson:
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/11/women-bishops-heres-new-deal.html
From the Anglo-Catholic point of view:
Fr Ed Tomlinson - thoughtful points
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2009/11/14/church-of-englands-response-is-forming/#comments
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2009/11/16/the-irony-of-it-all/
Fr Ivan Aquilina - ditto:
http://sevenoaks.blogspot.com/
Edwin Barnes, former +Richborough - very pro a move to Rome
http://bishedwins.blogspot.com/
other blogging bishops:
Alan Wilson, +Buckingham - there is a third option, do nothing:
http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2009/11/revison-committee-encounters.html
Nick Baines, +Croydon - why don’t you jump?
http://nickbaines.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/oh-no-i-agree-with-damian-thompson/
Liberals:
TA - broad coverage
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004064.html

Pageantmaster, re:

one thing at a time and don’t frighten the horses

Yes, when you’ve begun to arouse the somnolent elves, you have reached a sufficient level of stridency.

The Rabbit.

Pageantmaster: “From
what I have seen many large evangelical churches have women ministering”

Yes, in subordinate roles: that’s not the same as allowing any of them to be in charge, is it?

I know one Conservative Evangelical woman priest and mother who made many sacrifices so that she could remain living in the area where she was assistant priest for many years. The moment a hard-line new male vicar arrived, the first thing he did was sack her rather brutally, and she suddenly found herself, after many years, without a role at all. Needless to say, she subsequently came round to a more liberal way of looking at things, after realising that she was never going to be treated equally if she stayed hanging around Conservative Evangelical churches for ever. I think there are many with similar experiences. So it’s no wonder the potential women bishops might be “liberal”, if the conservatives hate them and treat them appallingly, is it?

Elves: why is Pageantmaster allowed to make a gratuitous reference to lesbianism, whereas I’m not? Is prurience an accepted part of “orthodoxy”?

#21

the first thing he did was sack her rather brutally, and she suddenly found herself, after many years, without a role at all. Needless to say, she subsequently came round to a more liberal way of looking at things

A fair point Fr Mark.

Fr. Mark, I believe Pageantmaster had an entire comment deleted. Share the pain.

Fr. Mark, for many Evangelicals, headship remains an issue even though presiding at Eucharist is not. This means that, while women may rise to prominence in leadership and sacramental roles, they will often find the top roles closed to them. For my east coast church, that means they will never be bishops. For my west coast church, that means their selection as rector may be passed over for a male candidate.

There is simply no way around the argument of equality vs. distinctive roles for men and women. Either one is correct, or the other. I believe that the Bible shows a distinct preference for male headship, and that preference extends beyond cultural bias into the innate, ontological anthropology espoused by the Bible from Genesis to Jesus.

RE: “So it’s no wonder the potential women bishops might be “liberal”, if the conservatives hate them and treat them appallingly, is it?”

Well, except that PM pointed out that there are plenty of “potential women bishops” who are conservative.

Sarah: No, he didn’t say “plenty”, he said “quite a few”, and I think simply “a few” would be more accurate. When I think of the English women priests I’ve come across, I would say that the majority of them are Affirming Catholics. But then, as I say, if they’re not encouraged into leadership by anyone else, then that will be the case, I suppose.

Brer Rabbit: but I wonder whether anyone really does practise thoroughgoing male headship (e.g. in the family) nowadays? It certainly was not the custom amongst Church of England families in the past, though would have been amongst Presbyterians or some Non-Conformists in Britain generations ago. If it isn’t valid within the family any longer (and I can’t imagine even young Conservative Evangelical Englishwomen would accept it) then the same goes for the Church, surely?

Fr. Mark, I didn’t raise the issue of family headship but headship within the church, and you definitely have a point there. In regard to the family, I do suspect that the “thoroughgoing male headship” you have in mind may have a cultural component to it. Western society has not sorted this out.

Male headship is impossible on a thoroughgoing basis in my country because the majority of households with children have no adult male, or at least, no adult male actually married to the mother.

And, is your point that since the family has deterioriated so disastrously, that the church should follow suit?

Brer Rabbit: No, my point is that not every detail of an ethic designed for the Near East more than 2000 years ago is appropriate in our context: when it comes to the biblical ideas of marriage (as of slavery or government), we do not regard them as binding today. Why then should this be a different case?

Since you keep bringing up marriage, I’ll address that.

I am a slave of Jesus. What he has to say about marriage is significant to me, and indeed valid today, whether it was 2,000 or 10,000 years ago. I firmly believe that there is such a thing as timeless principles, and that one can find them in the Bible if one is looking for them.

Now, back to the topic at hand. I’ll ask it a different way. Are you saying that the Scripture of 2,000 or 3,000 years ago is irrelevant to the question of how women should serve in church?

RE: “No, he didn’t say “plenty”, he said “quite a few” . . . “

Oh I think “quite a few” is plenty, thanks.  ; > )

RE: ” . . . and I think simply “a few” would be more accurate.”

I am sure that you do.

RE: “not every detail of an ethic designed for the Near East more than 2000 years ago . . . “

Except that the argument of reasserters is that it was designed for all places and all time.  So your statement merely reasserts your revisionist ethic.  Which is fine—as far as assertions go.

Which is, of course,

Brer Rabbit & Sarah: I’d say the Pauline prohibition on women speaking in church is about as relevant today as the Pauline injunction for wives to be submissive to their husbands. Surely this is hardly controversial in 2009!

I wonder if a little more submission would not be a good idea for all of us, not only one to another but of all of us to Christ.  We hear much talk of rights, human and otherwise, but little of duties, privileges and obligations.  My understanding of the Christian calling is that it is a servant ministry and one of mutual submission to Christ and service of one another and mankind.

In any event the issue is not one of women being submissive to men or even quiet in church [as if that is likely] or even of whether women should be called into ministry, episcopacy or headship.  The question is one of whether we being submissive to one another, make room for those of us who believe, as apparently Fr Mark did once upon a time, in a high view of holy orders and the eucharist, a view where anything but a male line of apostolic succession and laying on of hands produces a problem of validity of succession, and consequential sacramental invalidity, a view which although that of a significant minority of those in the Church of England, is nevertheless the view of the overwhelming majority of the world’s Christians and the two largest churches.

Well said, Master of the Pageant, especially your sage comments on mutual submission.

My personal position is shaped somewhat by the story of Deborah, which shows that God may put a woman in charge when the men are resolutely derelict, pointing to the shame of the men. Upon reflecting on your second paragraph, I must make note of the fact that Deborah had no disciples (unless that most blessed of women of the tent was inspired by her) and established no dynasty.

In other words, a female bishop would be disastrous to the integrity of the apostolic succession, at least for a great many Christians, and disastrous to the prospects for Christian unity. Both ACNA and my own Communion are well-counselled in their positions eschewing female bishops.

A female presbyter, while not anathema to my evangelical bones, is less of a threat to Christian unity and communion, since she holds no license outside her own Diocese. The high sacramentalist will find situations where an acceptable Eucharist is not available, and potentially, could find a situation in which a nearby male-led Eucharist is not available, and this should be a pastoral concern for the bishop. But it does not tip Christian unity into total melt-down.

Actually—many Anglicans believe both Pauline statements to be quite relevant.

But it doesn’t really matter what Anglicans—or indeed the vast vast bulk of Christians—or Scripture or Jesus believe about anything for those committed to their gospel of affirmation of same-gender sexual activity.

So it’s a moot discussion as to what Holy Scripture or Jesus or the Church down through the ages—or indeed rational thought—because their gospel—their idol, rather—is of paramount importance.

Two gospels.

In one organization—TEC.

Sarah: “many Anglicans believe both Pauline statements to be quite relevant.”

Such a literalist approach to the Bible is not the tradition of the Church of England. This is poorly understood by neo-Puritans at the moment, who appear to have little sense of history.

Pageantmaster: “...as apparently Fr Mark did once upon a time…”

Very waggish. Mark still has a high view of the sacraments - which , incidentally, Evangelicals are not supposed to have, though that hasn’t stopped them hurriedly developing a high sense of the importance of the episcopate since Jeffrey John’s nomination. I just don’t think, intellectually, that it is particularly a necessary mark of Catholicism to believe in the exclusion of women.

On that point, I disagree with the Pope, as I also disagree with him of the use of artificial contraception, for example, but not on any doctrines of the faith beyond gender/sexuality issues. Having the right to so disagree with the Holy Father is the privilege of being an Anglo-Catholic, as I always understood it.