In a letter published in The Times on Monday, the Revd Jean Mayland, a long-time campaigner on women’s ordination, said that, given the second amendment, the Bishops “now leave us no choice but to vote this whole Measure down”.
The committee of WATCH met on Saturday. On Monday, it said in a statement that it was “unanimous in its serious concern” about the second amendment, “and is thereÂfore conÂsulting further about how to proceed as we approach General Synod in July”.
The Group for Rescinding the Act of Synod said on Tuesday that the Bishops had pushed “the Draft Measure beyond an acceptable level of generosity and compromise”.
I have three questions. (1) What in the world is an acceptable level of generosity? That phrase makes no sense. (2) What ever happened to the big tent? (3) Is this the extremist womens’ version of “I am taking my ball and going home”?
The terms of reference here “generosity and compromise” are alien to the Church. The only terms that should be considered are orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Is W/O orthodox? If so then it should proceed and those who don’t like it told to stuff it or get out. And if it is heresy (and it is) then those opposed to it MUST HAVE NO COMMUNION WITH HERETICS. As a consequence they should be prepared for whatever that may entail.
Firstly one has to question the results of a poll in that liberal catholic rag the Church Times which surprise surprise concludes that Seventy-eight per cent of the 400 liberal catholic readers who responded thought that the amendments made by the Bishops decrease the Measure’s chances of receiving final approval in July.
Secondly, the CT report of the response of Forward in Faith for some reason omits from the bottom of the article the following caveat which ends their statement:
[blockquote]It was disappointing that the amendment which would have implemented co-ordinate jurisdiction was not passed. The draft Measure stills fails, therefore, to address questions of jurisdiction and authority in the way we need.[/blockquote]
Thirdly, David Keller your point is on the money when you ask “What in the world is an acceptable level of generosity? That phrase makes no sense.”
John Richardson has rumbled what is going on in his article Was there a ‘deliberate oversight’ in the proposed Measure on women bishops?
[blockquote]The other amendment deals with an otherwise-considerable anomaly. The wording of the legislation only specifies that an alternative bishop must be male.[/blockquote]
What the House of Bishops have done is to make an amendment in the Code of Practice that the alternate bishop has to be of a persuasion acceptable to the parish [i.e. presumably a liberal catholic ordained by a woman who ordains women would not fit] but it looks as if from what a leading member of WATCH sets out that this was exactly what WATCH were hoping would not get noticed and just get passed through, notwithstanding that there would be matching provisions for women in dioceses where the bishop did not ordain women.
John Richardson continues to dig a bit more detail into what WATCH and its allies appear to have rather slyly been up to from what one of its leaders, Miranda Threlfall Homes has to say:
[blockquote]So from the point of view of opponents, this amendment is simply making explicit a principle which ought really to have been in the legislation (not, as is proposed, the Code of Practice, which has an increasingly Herculean task of holding up the weight being placed on it).
However, it is here that alarm bells are set ringing. In her more-moderate blogpost on the subject of the amendments, Threlfall-Holmes nevertheless objects to the obvious consequences of this:
[blockquote]They [the Anglican hierarchy] will even try (according to the archbishops’ notes to their press release) to make sure that they can keep a supply of special bishops on hand for ever to make sure this discrimination is fostered.[/blockquote]
Now hold on a moment! Does that not mean that she was hoping — indeed expecting — that such a supply would not be forthcoming? What she has written suggested that is indeed the case:
[blockquote]… even the [1993 Episcopal Ministry] Act of Synod never said that you could choose your own alternative bishop based on whether they agreed with you. If you felt you needed a male priest or bishop, that would be respected. That is what the unamended legislation we had until this week said too.[/blockquote]
So it would seem that Threlfall-Holmes’ interpretation of the proposed Measure was exactly what many of us (including, now, the House of Bishops) believed to be a glaring anomaly — that if you didn’t want a woman you could have a man, but that was all. Even if he disagreed with your views. Even if he taught against them and sought to change them, that would be deemed irrelevant.
One is left, therefore, with the sneaking suspicion that the ommission regarding the views of alternative bishops and appointed clergy was, at least on the part of some, a deliberate oversight — that the hope was that it would slip through unnoticed and that thereafter the ‘letter of the law’ would have been applied, rather than the spirit of 1993 when the Church seemed genuinely keen to cater for both views.
I may be wrong. But when I read of complaints to the effect that the bishops have somehow spoiled the party and that supporters of women bishops are now considering voting against the legislation, I wonder if this is not paranoia but realism.[/blockquote]
All very stinky of WATCH indeed. Are any of them fit to be bishops?
Thanks #3. Your last comment reminds me of Groucho Marx’s comment that he didn’t belong to any clubs because he had no use for a club that would accept him as a member. I have known many, many bishops in my church life and the one thing that sets 90% + of them apart, is in today’s church, anybody who can be elected a bishop shouldn’t be one.
I recall earlier that a traditionalist bishop said, “Wait and see,” to a previous set of resolutions. So this means that they have successfully amended the measure to make it unacceptable to all? Sounds like a victory for actual “generosity and compromise,” that is, the way it was before.
By the way, you can see a bit of Miranda Threlfall Holmes in her own words here. She rather lets the cat out of the bag as far as the intolerant machinations of WATCH go.
As Pageantmaster aptly observes, the penultimate paragraph is grossly misleading about Forward-in-Faith’s position. It gives the impression the FiFUK agrees with the amendments, by omitting the sentence where they state that the amended measure “fails to address” question of jurisidiction and authority!
How does the journalist or the Church Times explain this, except as an attempt to mislead the public?
I wonder how much difference this is going to make? The actual number of hard-line liberals in CofE appears to be quite small, albeit that they seem to occupy a disportionate number of the positions of influence. If they oppose this measure, will that actually stop it I wonder?
Reading debate between the hard-liners (those who want all provision for traditionalists eliminated from the CofE immediately) and the softer-liberals (those like HOB who want some very limited provision made for the traditionalists – for now), is that both have no time for traditionalists. They both would like to see them eradicated from CofE, its just that the soft liberals are prepared to wait another decade or two to bring it about.
TEc playbook. We’ve seen it all before, even the re-plays. No one in CoE was watching, eh?