(TLC) Key Moments in C of E Synod’s Debate on Women Bishops

Some observers think a speech in the final stages of the 2012 vote tipped balance and led to defeat of the measure. This time the final speaker, a blind member who is an evangelical from Bristol, the Rev. John Spence, seemed to tip it the other way.

Directing comments to evangelical opponents, he said: “Your faith is my faith, is all of our faith, and every one of us has a vital role to ensure that the searing vision of the risen Christ is taken out into this country. ”¦ I am confident that we can walk hand in hand, and return the risen Christ to his rightful place at the centre of this country, its conscience, and its culture.” Spence won a standing ovation.

In greeting the result the Archbishop of Canterbury said: “Today marks the start of a great adventure of seeking mutual flourishing while still, in some cases, disagreeing. The challenge for us will be for the church to model good disagreement.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, Anglican Provinces, Church of England (CoE), CoE Bishops, Women

3 comments on “(TLC) Key Moments in C of E Synod’s Debate on Women Bishops

  1. dwstroudmd+ says:

    Yes, disagreeing with Jesus, the Apostles, and two thousand years of orthodox general praxis. But, what the hey, we don’t need Rome or Constantinople, we’re in “good disagreement”. And no doubt the cOE will flourish like TEc, Sweden,AcA, etc.

    The jettisoning of the “provide for” will no doubt proceed more quickly apace if the assisted dying favoured by certain prior ABC’s is enacted and acted upon. “Mutual affirmation” of the need for the “good disagreement” marches on.

  2. Katherine says:

    It’s extremely naive to think that “good disagreement” is going to include allowing the traditional ministry to flourish without interference (or at all).

  3. driver8 says:

    I very vaguely recall an acerbic RC, I think, who had once attended a diocesan eucharist at some grand CofE cathedral. Everything that was said, he jested, emphasized the priesthood of all believers. Everything that was done signified the most acutely drawn clericalism.

    I hear the words “flourishing” and “good disagreement”. I see the extraordinary use of procedure, the threats of direct Parliamentary action, the breaking of promises once made and the abandonment by the Catholic party of the very things they said were essential just a year ago.