I do love the eccentricity of the English, well sometimes, the irony, the backing the underdog, the not doing things because 'It's just not Cricket'. The Church of England seems equally eccentric. Let me tell you a story:
It all started back in the Summer at General Synod, when the two Archbishops proposed a rather delicious fudge where women bishops could at once be equal and not equal to their male counterparts, (see Thinking Anglicans). Remarkably, it seems that General Synod thought this was not possible, but it was only narrowly defeated (although some say that it is highly unusual to go against an amendment tabled by both Archbishops).
The idea of 'Societies' was considered by the revision committee, but rejected because:
'Crucially the majority of us came to believe that there was some risk of creating a society that was an even weightier body than a Diocese. This was because some of the representations made to us seemed to envisage that jurisdiction would in some way be conferred on the society itself and through it to its bishops…we therefore voted by 11 votes to 7 that we did not wish the draft Measure to be amended to give effect to a society model.' (Report of the Revision Committee, page 22 paras 110, 115).So it is rather surprising that we now have two Societies. One for the staunch Catholics (Forward in Faith) called the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda (with St Hilda being the patron saint of feminists) and the other for the staunch Low Church Conservative Evangelicals (Anglican Mainstream) called Society of Saint Augustine (with both St Augustines being very high church and pro-Rome).
The other Conservative Evangelicals group, Reform, seems to have some issues. Our correspondent, Sue M explains:
For a variety of reasons, which I am too tired to explain, Reform has failed to deliver a manly thrust in its bid to stop the monstrous tyranny of women in the Church of England.
In short, Reform has not managed to reform anything at all and needs to be reformed, or something like that. It may also relate to something Chris Sugden has set up, a society for evangelicals called after St. Augustine.Ah, so perhaps some at Reform have given up on reforming the rest of us and are going to join a Society in splendid isolation instead.
Are you still with me? Because I haven't mentioned the 'Ordinariate' (which is the Catholic church for disaffected Anglicans, I believe). One congregation will be joining it, although why they can't simply go to the local Catholic church, I'm not sure...? I mentioned that both the Flying Bishops in the Southern Province of Canterbury are on ah-hem 'Study Leave', I rather naughtily suggested that it was gardening leave and that they were going to join the Ordinariate. The Church Mouse also noticed this and asked the question, to which the answer seemed to be, 'No, no, no, not setting up an Ordinariate, perish the thought, just going to be reading books'. In the mean time, the Bishop of Fulham, who is the chairman of 'Forward in Faith' has announced that he is going to join the Ordinariate, saying:
"I don't feel I have any choice but to leave the Church and take up the Pope's offer. The General Synod has become vindictive and vicious.
"It has been fascist in its behaviour, marginalising those who have been opposed to women's ordination. We have not been given any space."Although, the Church Mouse noticed that if you are baptised a Catholic (which the Bishop of Fulham is) you can't join the Ordinariate, unless your family is already a member. The idea is that you can't be a disaffected Anglican-Catholic if you are already a Catholic-Catholic, in that case you simply have to be a Catholic. All clear?
Which brings me all the way back to the fudge, at the beginning of this post. I'll go and lie down now.
13 comments:
Lesley,
Fudges are the strength of the church, It has helped it to have a big tent to accommodate all traditions within it.
My sadness is that those opposed to the Ordination of Women are not prepared to stay and to persevere.
If the Spirit is being heard, then the measure for Women Bishop's will be passed - however, it is still dependent upon the will of Parliament.
In the end, those opposed will follow their conscience (hopefully) and go with grace, not bitterness.
As for the situation with the Flying Bishops and Bishop Burnham, I feel that enough has been said, but to retire, take your pension and call it resignation seems to me to be a little less then honest.
All I'm going to say is, when I give a manly thrust, I give a manly thrust. All you folks are just so lucky I am not an archbishop. I'ld have you all up at the crack of dawn practicing with broadswords. That is, after my night of manly thrusts.
By the way, did anyone ever ask Bishop Broadhurst whatever happened to, "Never complain, never explain", and, "No names, no packdrill"?
Looked at in cumulatively the round, this is all potty, isn't it? Every new clique makes perfect sense in its own terms because everyone is usually right from their own point of view, but seen as a whole the effect is what our transatlantic cousins call pure Monty Py-thon.
This is an excellent post and you have really highlighted the utter absurdities when viewed as a whole.
And Bishop Alan Wislon is right, it really does look like the potty church of Python when viewed cumulatively :)
Thanks all, Stuart have you commented before? If not then welcome :) I have added your blog to my blog roll.
Always look on the bright side of life.. da dum da dum da dum da dum..
Gurdur I would LOVE you to be an archbishop, I know, technical issue of non belief in God.. but I feel you have some excellent common sense skills that appear to have confounded the rest of us!
If the Americans read Lesley's intro they're more likely to see in it their 70's sitcom SOAP, which had equally elaborate catch-ups. The characters of loony patriarchs, gay members of the family, extra-family affairs, ... Aahh, I must get the DVD. Of SOAP that is.
Lesley, I am very much pro-women bishops, but I have started to wonder whether some sort of provision should have been made for them after all. I can’t help but think that, if you want to at least have a go at changing someone’s mind about women’s ordination (admittedly in the long-term), it is necessary to keep them in conversation, rather than letting them go off and set up their own denomination where ‘a big NO to that!’ becomes an irretractable article of faith…. isn’t it better in the long term for the pro-women bishops side to keep the anti-women bishops side on board?
Some (e.g. Fr Ed Tomlinson) have complained that they thought the ‘flying bishop’ arrangements introduced in 1992 were to be a permanent thing, and not just a temporary arrangement.
Reading about the ‘norms’ of the ordinariate on Mouse’s blog, however, has made me wonder whether the big O itself is destined to be a short-term thing, perhaps lasting no more than one generation.
It is curious that ‘regular’ RCs aren’t allowed to join the O; for although we are told that exceptions can be made for Bp Broadhurst, etc., it is clear that such is the general principle. I imagine this is disappointing to all the ultramontane (or ‘Damian Thompson’) RCs – particularly those who crossed the tiber years ago on principle, alone, and without any assurances of continued Anglo-Catholic style worship.
D.T. hints that the O should bring a ritualist/ultramontane/‘Benedictine’ revival in the English RC church as a whole – but the ‘norm’ above seems designed to prevent that. Even though non-O laity will be allowed to attend O masses, the whole thing seems founded on an ‘us and them’ divide (particularly if the O’s really ARE entire congregations who have crossed the Tiber together). Ultramontanists will probably stick with Brompton Oratory! It also seems clear that non-O’s will be canonically barred from O ordination, and so have no escape from the liberal English RC bishops and the trendy Novus Ordo priesthood.
Meanwhile, you have a small group, who to some extent must remain apart from the greater RC world in order to retain their privileges; can only be numerically replenished from baptisms within the O (which will be dependent on young people joining it: for they will lack the C of E’s ‘passing trade’ or the RC church’s brand loyalty) or else converts from the C of E; which group is unpopular with the English RC bishops; and whose ‘unique selling points’ (compared to, say, the Anglo-Catholic stylings of the Oratorians of St Philip Neri) appear to boil down to the as-yet-unresolved question of whether in the future married O laity will be eligible for ordination…
It does seem to me likely that the O will eventually merge into the regular RC church (and so John Sentamu’s question: “why the ordinariate? Why not just become an RC anyway?”)
PS sorry for all the long posts!
The problem is that you cannot square the circle of having women bishops on equal terms and satisfying those who will only accept women bishops on unequal terms. Wales chose not to have women bishops rather than 2nd class ones, and I suspect that the same may well be true in England (assuming that Parliament doesn't make that choice for us).
I have heard a number of women saying that if the church has second class women bishops or fails to pass the measure then they are off - they are just less threatening about it - expressing an opinion rather than threatening the church.
Thanks Rich
I can understand where you are coming from, and I am sympathetic. However, I would far rather no women bishops than male and female bishops that aren't equal. The church is oppressive as an employer to women, I tried to explain it here . So I would not want to add to this, nor to change the idea of bishops all being equal to each other. I think most women clergy seem to feel the same. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many would ultimately stay in this situation, my feeling is that we would drift away without the hope of full equality. Some things can be fudged, this isn't one of them.
I wonder whether they don't want RC priests joining the O and getting married?
Having swum the Tiber the wrong way from the RC Church, I would not wish to return, and I would most certainly not wish to join the 'O' as it is now described, although It would appear I would not be eligible to do so.
I have had wonderful day today sharing worship as a Lay Minister, a staff meeting in the vicarage and trying to envision the ministry team with some of the things I heard and learned at the #CMAC10 last Saturday - something is working and I am now to brief the Benefice Council on Thursday evening.
It fills me with Joy that new opportunities and encounters are on the horizon, with the Vicar sharing with me that he see's my ministry developing as an Evangelist - where in the RC church would these freedoms and opportunities be found, rarely and under strict supervision. The RC Church is to authoritarian for my taste.
Off course, I still feel called to do more, but the Church and the Holy Spirit are providing enough excitement and inspiration for me - I just feel that sharing and serving where I am is where God called me to be. Going elsewhere is just not an option.
Some comments from me as an outsider, and thanks to Lesley for the info in this blog post of hers.
Gosh, I hope it isn't as gloomy as you suggest...
always look on the bright....
Post a Comment