Herein lies the rub, I think. The legislation before Synod on Tuesday was already a “compromise”, in the original sense of that word. That is to say, it was a co-promise: an agreement that together we would move forward mutually, not severally.
It was this that the Synod had set its mind to. That the Church lost sight, so early, of a simple one-clause measure, is a real tragedy. And it was this failure of leadership, ultimately, that led the Church inexorably and slowly to Tuesday’s result.
I hate to tell the writer this, but it was not a failure of leadership, but a failure of the laity, if this is indeed a failure at all. What disturbs me about all this is the fact that no one on the losing side of this is open to the idea that maybe this was God’s will. This is just another agenda item that we want to crank through, and discernment of God’s actual will be hanged.
This is no doubt true with the CofE, but it’s also true of TEC. The problem as I see it is one of where the laity had the chance years ago to speak out forcefully against WO, they failed miserably when they had the chance to do it and didn’t. It’s a case of “he who speaks the least speaks the loudest.” They forgot that while they participated in the leadership, they let others run roughshod over them to the point where the words of the common person in the pews were meaningless.
On the contrary it was the refusal to make appropriate space for conservative Evangelicals and Anglo Catholics that led to the fall of this measure.
Given the concerns expressed by members of the Synod, a single clause measure stands less prospect of being passed than the measure that has already failed.
For those who wish to quickly move forward the options seem to me:
1. Propose a new measure something that the anti’s will be willing to let pass. The Archbishops attempted to do this and Synod rejected it. In other words, they attempted to lead and Synod declined to follow. (This would be a very bitter bill for folks determined to avoid a repetition of 1993/1994).
2. Bring pressure to bear on the anti’s (difficult to see what this could be at this point).
3. Wait until new Synod members are elected in 2015 and pray fewer conservatives are elected.
[blockquote] “I asked him about the implications of already having women bishops in the wider Anglican Communion.” [/blockquote]
Of which there are very few. There are only 23 active bishops in the Anglican Communion, and almost all of them are in USA and Canada.
[blockquote] “Herein lies the rub, I think. The legislation before Synod on Tuesday was already a “compromiseâ€, in the original sense of that word.” [/blockquote]
Dr Percy doesn’t have a clue. The measure was no compromise at all – it was based firmly on the premise that the extinction in CofE of those who cannot accept the ministry of women bishops is only a matter of time. If instead the one-clause measure proposed by Dr Percy had been put forward, that undoubtedly would have frightened more waverers into the “no”” camp.
The proponents of the measure were the very ones who caused it to fail.
My apologies, my previous post should have read: “There are only 23 active *women* bishops in the Anglican Communion, and almost all of them are in USA and Canada.
MichaelA: Sometimes I wonder if your original typo is, in fact, correct. We have way too many caretaker bishops who are loitering just long enough to be vested at Bishop’s wages in the Church Pension Plan.