THE news that the revision committee has chosen not to explore the option of the single clause with a statutory code of practice any further, and has gone for “certain functions to be invested in bishops by statute” will strike despair into the hearts of many. What the committee is proposing takes a step back from the position Synod thought it had reached in July 2008.
My concerns are on several levels. First, these proposals appear to institutionalise mistrust in legislation: the opponents of women’s ordination do not trust the bishops to make proper provision. Is that really what we have come to?
Second, it destroys the ecclesiology of the Church of England, making it legitimate to “choose your own bishop”. Are there to be any limits as to the grounds on which you might petition to do this?
RE: “First, these proposals appear to institutionalise mistrust in legislation: the opponents of women’s ordination do not trust the bishops to make proper provision. Is that really what we have come to?”
Uh . . . [i]yes[/i].
[1] you beat me to almost the [i]exact[/i] comment. Is he really that slow to see this?
As an aside, of all the corruption within the church – the winner take all – ‘force the troglodytes to accept change with no accommodation or leave’ attitude is perhaps the most dismaying. And telling.
🙄
Are progressive CofE bishops in any significant way different from progressive ECUSA bishops? Yes, indeed, the CofE has come to the point where the minority do not trust the bishops to honor their principles.
Let’s see….hundreds of thousands of Anglo-Catholics had women bishops crammed down their throat without any compromise what-so-ever by the Synod. Why would there possibly be any “mistrust”?
Intercessor