Protections for conservatives were “insufficient”
The Church needs to speak not with one tongue, but with many tongues as it always has. Legalism and intolerance are bad Christianity, but they are what the proposed Measure was very likely to increase. We were told over and over again that provision was being made for those who reject women clergy and bishops. But this was simply untrue. It was a lie. These minorities had sought arrangements on which they could rely. But instead what they had said they needed had been consistently rejected – or, when the Archbishops made some effort to achieve a compromise that would work for them, neither Archbishop managed the process of promoting what they were proposing at all well. That was how the Church arrived at this situation fraught as it was with dishonesty and illusion. That the vote went against the Measure despite the immense pressure placed on the Laity should suggest that what was being proposed was seen as a serious problem. It was defeated by a coalition that included many lay people who want there to be women bishops but not by dishonest inadequate means that were demonstrably not fit for purpose.
This man sees reality:
[blockquote] “I do not want the Church to vote to shrink more, and there is no doubt that the ordination of women has not had the entirely positive effect that was anticipated. It has not led to an increase in the membership or the effectiveness of our church, however good most women priests have been. The decline in numbers and in status and in the respect in which we are held by ordinary citizens who are not active members has become precipitate.
…
[By contrast] Conservative evangelical and some Anglo-catholic parishes are thriving.” [/blockquote]
Yes, I noticed that too MichaelA. The reality that developed has clearly tempered his commitment to this agenda, but not swayed him off the underlying principles – a rare and valuable person to have around. He neither acquires his principles from pragmatics, nor does he ignore reality when looking at the implementation of his principles.
If there were more people like him on both sides of the debate there might be realistic prospects for limiting the institutional damage this debate causes (whether that would be a good thing or not is another question, just that I think it isn’t even a possibility without a critical threshold of people like him).