…the only difference between the current arrangements for “flying” bishops, who are appointed to care for traditionalists, and the new “co-ordinate” bishops proposed by Dr Williams and Dr Sentamu, would be the source of authority.
With delegate bishops, the authority to conduct confirmations and other services would come from the diocesan bishop. With the new “co-ordinate” bishops proposed by the Archbishops, it would come from Synod, giving the traditionalist male equal authority in the diocese with the female diocesan.
But Jamaica-born Ms [Rose] Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman chaplain to the House of Commons, told The Times that this was unacceptable. “If we are going to have women as bishops then we need to have women bishops. We need to stop moving the goalposts. I am not happy with anything that only begrudgingly makes women bishops.”
Read it all (subscription required).
[blockquote]But Jamaica-born Ms [Rose] Hudson-Wilkin, the first black woman chaplain to the House of Commons, told The Times that this was unacceptable. “If we are going to have women as bishops then we need to have women bishops. We need to stop moving the goalposts. I am not happy with anything that only begrudgingly makes women bishops.â€[/blockquote]
By all means demand your rights. By all means tell God what He has to do for you, because it’s your right after all and He owes it to you.
No Bishop who ever wanted the job should have it.
Meanwhile, synod commemorated the 350th anniversary of Great Ejectment with a healing service.
🙄
Br. Michael–You are absolutely correct. Every priest I have ever known who coveted being a bishop was basically a egomaniac nut job.
She is a thoroughly political animal, with a very bad attitude, and completely unfit, not only to hold any office in the Church, but also unfit to even comment on things spiritual or pastoral. It’s people like her who destroyed TEC.
Let the CoE learn from the disastrous mistakes made by TEC, and the ACoC, or made in Australia and New Zealand. The end doesn’t justify the means, as “progressives” so often seem to suppose.
I support WO in principle, even including the possibility (in an ideal world) of having women bishops. However, I fully support the ACNA’s stand of restricting the episcopate to men, in the spirit of Romans 14 and not exercising our legitimate spiritual freedom in a way that causes brothers and sisters to stumble. Moreover, I freely grant that overall, the ordination of women to the priesthood as well as the episcopate in North America has been nothing short of disastrous. It’s an open secret that female clergy are not just more liberal than male clergy, but overwhelmingly so. That’s the real problem.
There are some female priests I know who would probably make excellent bishops (again, in a utopian world). My shortlist would include Alison Barfoot+ (now serving on ++Orombi’s staff in Uganda) and Mary Hays+ (canon to the ordinary in Pittsburgh). And there are actually a few, a very few, female bishops who have done a credible job, including +Geralyn Wolf in Rhode Island, and Canada’s +Virtoria Matthews (now Bishop of Christ Church in New Zealand), and not least, +Ruth Urban, the one and only orthodox woman made a bishop in a conservative Anglican breakaway group (All Nations Anglican Church, led by a schismatic Kenyan, +John Githiga).
But overall, women priests and bishops have been a catastrophe for Anglicanism. It’s not just what decisions that get made that are important; it’s no less important that crucial decisions be made properly, and for the right reasons. The “irregular” and totally uncanonical ordination to the priesthood of 11 progressive American women in Philadelphia back in 1974 was the epitome of the WRONG way to do it. And the usual justifications offered by pro-WO advocates, based on secular notions of gender equality and with little attempt to ground those notions of social justice in the Bible, is emphatically promoting WO for all the WRONG reasons.
David Handy+
The sound you are hearing the Ordinariate cheering.
I would never cheer heresy. But in this case I concur that what we are seeing is creative destruction. Lincoln once observed that a house divided can not stand. Such is the Anglican Communion. That house is now collapsing. All the fudging in the world can paper over fundamental differences on doctrine for only so long.
It will be interesting to see what emerges from the rubble.
I think that the Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin misses the point. The reason she does so is that she has not understood the theological problems from the Anglo-Catholic end, instead relying on arguments based on justice and equal rights. Indeed there is no reason why she should have done so – the only reason I have some idea is because I have made the effort to find out what they are. She misses the point that if under the Anglo-Catholic [and it has to be said the Roman Catholic and Orthodox] understanding, if the episcopal authority is itself in question, then delegating that authority really does not help. To understand all this it is worth reading the excellent Rochester Report. I had a discussion of what the problems are in this thread – and it is worth trying to understand even if, like me, you come from an evangelical/prayer book background with no particular objection to women’s ministry at any end [although considerable doubts about those being lined up as the first women bishops].
I hadn’t really intended to comment until after the votes but in case there is anything I can contribute:
1. We are not deciding these matters in isolation. The Ordinariate is here as a direct response to Synod’s actions a while back. Moreover, AMiE is here as well, so Synod’s decisions will impact the future of Anglicanism in the UK in addition to perhaps making people feel unwelcome.
2. The reality is that it will take a 2/3 majority in each house of bishops, clergy and laity for the Measure to come in at a final vote. This level has never to date been achieved in any of the votes on women bishops. If acceptable provision is not provided, the possibility of the measure reaching that bar will prove even more remote.
3. Outside the Church of England, many eyes across the Communion and the wider Christian world are watching us to see how we deal with this. Our position has been damaged in many peoples’ eyes by past votes, and this vote is both a potential difficulty, but also an opportunity for us to show others the best and the most creative that we can be.
4. There is a specific problem with the Code being discussed today which just occured to me listening to the bishop’s answers this afternoon. The bishop suggested that although the code was not enforceable within itself, judicial review by the high court could be applied for in the case of a decision of a bishop not to grant alternative requests for oversight. One or two potential women bishop have in writing said that they regard a request as not to be taken at face value, but rather a starting point for ‘discussion’ with the parish. There are a number of practical problems with this: the cost of judicial review is prohibitive – it will require a parish to brief lawyers and counsel at a cost of not less than £5,000 and possibly in a contested application up to £50,000 – few parishes have such resources even to repair roofs, let alone spend on legal fees; if the parish loses, the bishop could get an award of the bishops legal fees against them; the bishop, although likely to be closely scrutinised on his conduct will almost certainly be entitled to have his legal fees underwritten by the Church Commissioners as his/her decision will be in the course of his office while the parish is left fighting a bishop with a backer with billions behind him; lastly for the church to send its disputes to Court is not only unbiblical, it could have unwelcome and unforeseen results for the whole church through placing such decisions in secular hands if for example current equality legislation or as yet unknown future legislation is applied by the judges to church matters. I think we all should be chary of this as a way forward.
Finally I would say that we do have a history of balance and of creative solutions, so I am not going to prejudge what will happen this Synod, but will pray that we deal with these matters as Christians, waiting on and for one another, and providing an example of how the CofE and the British can rise to the challenges we deal with.
It is also worth remembering the words, perhaps even instructions, of our Supreme Governor [and whose 60th anniversary of Accession we celebrated yesterday] at the opening of Synod last year, in which HM quoted from the verses which closed the Rochester Report:
At least its good to see that these issues are being placed in the public eye. It is becoming evidence to everyone involved that there is no compromise possible between liberals like Ms Hudson-Wilkin and the orthodox.
I agree with those above that she is clearly not fit to be a bishop, even if female bishops were permitted.
Pray that the Lord will guide what happens in His Providence, to work for the good of His people, regardless of the schemes of men.
A second ‘take note’ debate on the response of the dioceses to the women bishops measure has started. The chair of the business committee is reporting on the response of dioceses.
The important motion put forward by Manchester diocese to amend the measure to incorporate the Archbishops’ proposal that the measure should be amended to enhance the protection of traditionalists will be discussed this afternoon at 2:30 pm [9:30 am EST].
The debates can be listened to live here. Podcasts and results will be here. Other links are linked above here.
Thanks to Pageantmaster for the information, analysis, the links, and the play-by-play.
#11 Thanks NoVA Scout – ‘though I am not sure whether I was able to throw much more than more darkness on the subject of the debates yesterday!