A new class of so-called “super bishop” is to be proposed as a way of saving the Church of England from a damaging split over women bishops, it has been disclosed.
The Church’s ruling body, the General Synod, is to be asked to back work on two options to solve the impasse over how to introduce women bishops in the Church.
One of the options would be to develop a national code to accommodate those who object to women bishops on grounds of religious conscience.
There is something truly depressing about these efforts to come up with something Anglo-Catholics might accept when they themselves have described quite clearly what they need in their proposals for a 3rd Province. What is the point of offering “concessions” that are neither welcome nor, in fact, going to accomplish their goal. To my mind, the more draconian the liberals are, the better. One’s gorge rises at the prospect of more force-fed fudge.
I fully support providing structures and pastoral provision for those Anglicans who, for reasons of conscience and theological conviction, are unable to accept women’s ordination at any level. Liberals and reappraisers should be the loudest voices calling out for full inclusion for Anglo-Catholics and others faced with this kind of prejudicial discrimination. Likewise provision should be made for those who seek to secure the full inclusion of glbt Christians within the Communion. Let the Anglican Federation begin where equitable structures are created for all members of the Anglican family to live in impaired communion with as much charity as possible. It is time for Anglican comprehensiveness to enter the 21st century. The old ways worked for a long time but they are not sufficient for postmodern problems although beauty may yet come from their ashes.
Just what we need an Uber Bischopf!
Archangelica, I think it is something just along these lines that GAFCON is proposing, and will be the ultimate result I think. Anglicans, bless our lily-livered socks are too cowardly to break completely apart and will muddle along somewhere in the middle. “Impaired communion” is, I think the key. Ironically, I think it is this glue that will hold everyone together.
justinmartyr,
Then it truly is Crazy Glue. One China, two systems.
Sounds like: “Let’s cast lots.” The Mind of Christ is not divided. If there is not agreement, (and I do not mean consensus) then someone is not listening to the very Mind of Christ. There should be no further advancement of the proposal until there is agreement.
Crazy glue, i.e., each bishop respectfully remaining in communion with those bishops with whom he can in good conscience fellowship, is in my limited view a much better church adhesive than suing in secular courts: something we have been forbidden to do.
What glue would you bind us with? Simply tearing apart is not a practical solution since you know it’ll end in the courts.
Daniel Lozier: a simple studying of history shows that what you term “the mind of christ” has been divided since the start of church history. What we learn is that the apostles respectfully agreed to disagree and concelebrated with those with whom they could conscientiously concelebrate.
I don’t know what bible you’re using to come up with a statement that “the mind of Christ” has been divided since the start of church history? Certainly not the Authorized Version! Christ is neither bi-polar nor schizophrenic! The glue that Christ binds his Church with is the pure Word of God preached and the Sacraments duly ministered. I advise you to read the Articles of Religion in their plain and intended meaning.
I used the phrase ironically. “Christ’s mind” doesn’t dictate the style of the Popes (Gucci) shoes, the color of the clergy’s chasubles or the order of the liturgy. There are genuine, conscientious differences between Christians on most issues, and throwing around the phrase “the mind of Christ” doesn’t help us to respectfully explore differing views.
Bruton, did you honestly believe that I was advocating a schizoid messiah? You silly, silly little man!
Super bishops means, at last, one who is primus inter pares among super bishops, a not-pope pope. This is not a solution, it is a ramping up of conflicts and impasses. If the answer to the question is that there must be women bishops in the COE, then that is the answer and those who do not like it can go elsewhere. At this moment, there is an elsewhere they can go to. If the answer is No to women bishops, thee there should be no women in the priesthood, and those in the priest hood must be sent to San Francisco or to Schori or some other such outlandish place. What it is time for, is for Anglicanism to grow up past inclusivity and all its jargoned ilk, and admit that there are standards, rooted in scripture, that leave lots of people out of the church. When do we say, “NO MORE VICAR OF BRAY”? Larry
Je me souviens.
No, Larry, a super bishop is not a pope, he is an arch-bishop or an arch-archbishop. The difference is one is a fallible human being whose every word must be judged against scripture, the other is something else. Enough of this “every man a pope” or even “some men popes” nonsense. We all know this is so inaccurate is is puerile.
Having read the article linked to, the “super bishops,” one for York and two for Canterbury, appear to be little different from the PEVs with which traditionalists have been willing to live since women priests were first introduced.
Does anyone know whether the PEV/super bishop option is available to evangelicals, if they ask, as well as anglo-catholics? If so, this could be a way to begin building a positive option for English traditional believers.
ha ha – you have to ask why super bishops but no dioceses? The answer – with super bishops our money still rolls into the liberal dioceses…this shows the ugly facts under the surface. The Bishops do not care a jot about orders and ecclesiology – but care deeply about finance and control. This is a fudged nonsense to give us what we want without losing power and cash. (And let us face it – if the big evangelicals left most dioceses they would be bankrupt)
How sad. And if I am wrong explain why this is acceptable but dioceses isnt
“Does anyone know whether the PEV/super bishop option is available to evangelicals, if they ask, as well as anglo-catholics? If so, this could be a way to begin building a positive option for English traditional believers.”
Yes, but they have never asked for one. The “Reform” organization (the organization of Evangelicals opposed to WO) has, but they really are a tiny group (compared to FIF/UK), while most English Anglican Evoes either favor WO, regard it as a “secondary issue” or else, with that practical congregationalism and lack of any concept of the link between sacramental communion and Church Order that characterizes most of them, “just get on with” ministry and church-planting without much concern for matters outside their own circles (with the exception of SS among many of them).
ask yourself why Sandy Miller was consecrated and you have your answer
But a super bishop will come close to popishness, won’t he (unless he is a she). That is, his voice will speak to a very very few who are all likely to agree with him. As you well know, though all super bishops will be equal, one will be more equal that the others, and we will have a voice that is primus inter pares. And behold, a hierarchy of authority, a leading voice and a curia,a controlling voice in matters of doctrine and practice. And if the bishops disagree with the superbishops? What are their options? As power and authority are concentrated in a smaller and smaller group at the top, the power to control will also concentrate. And one wonders, what of the ABC?
One way to avoid schism is to elect a tyrant ( in the Greek sense of the word). The one desk where the buck stops. Gafcon has said the solution lies in a concilliar church. The super bishop strongly favors the creation of the tyrannos. Now it’s our choice. LM
Larry Morse, maybe I am misunderstanding the proposal, but I think you’re misunderstanding what a “super bishop” would be. This all may be academic since we will soon know what the English synod decides.
rugbyplayingpriest, I see your point. Keep ’em in the stable but keep their money coming to us. Yuck.
“rugbyplayingpriest, I see your point. Keep ‘em in the stable but keep their money coming to us. Yuck.”
This reappraiser fully supports the right for Anglo-Catholics and others to have their own pastoral provision AND to send a majority of their money to support their own structures and missions. Still, at least a 10% annual tithe ought to be given to TEC or the CofE even if there are stipulations as to how and where it is can be directed. It would be an equal injustice to seek to remain in TEC or the CofE in any alternative way without at least giving something to pay dues for belonging to the larger entity.
archangelica, in my home diocese in the U.S., all parishes must pay their assessments to the diocese, and stipulations on where that money will be used aren’t part of the deal. Your more generous attitude is one not shared by TEC leadership.
20 – fair point. And sorry to be cynical – but a whole life in a vicarage teaches you to be that way!
Once women are consecrated as bishops, which is the logical extension of ordaining them as in priests, there can be no barrier to a woman becoming ABC. It would be a political inevitability, even a necessity. Super bishops mean nothing.
Given that the [url=http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/07/women-bishops-t.html#more]debates[/url] over the issue are not [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/14033/]going well[/url] for traditionalists at the English synod, the arguments about super bishops or anything else may be moot.