Patrick, are these the kinds of views that one can expect from Anglo-Catholics? I mean thank God that a few conservative ACs sided with conservative Evangelicals to prevent the Church of England from going off a cliff, but the charismatic and wacky parent church of Archbishop Welby, where they like to speak in tongues and are strongly liberal, is Anglo-Catholic, and I'm seeing more and more ACs just side with liberals on most issues. Is that your standard then? Public popularity? I see. The People won't turn around (because they're too important and impervious), so the Church must? Instead of saying that it's the Church that is impervious and won't move, and it's the People who must? I'm afraid that God instituded the Church on earth, he didn't institute the People. They don't matter. They can come and go, they can devastate themselves in the fires of barbarian invasions, get destroyed, exterminated by invading forces, appear again, become populous again, etc. That's what People do. It is the Church's job to persevere through all that time and to exist to witness to all ages and all nations, unmoving and unchangeable, because the Gospel once delivered to the Saints can never and will never change, Patrick. Christianity is a real thing Patrick. God exists. Christianity is not what you can make of it.
It certainly isn't, which is why I will oppose you, because you are trying to make it into some kind of insular, elitist private members club. How can you even say the people outside don't matter? Tey're made in the image God. God, in case you've forgotten wills the salvation of all and Christ was incarnate for such as these people who apparently 'don't matter'. You seem to think of Christianity as if the truth were some sort of esoteric secret and there was nothing to learn from world outside, almost as if you have a total amnesia as to who it's creator is and who is the father of us all...or sorry does Paul not actually quote a pagan philosopher in suport of his argument in Titus 1? Or did the Syrophoenecian woman (and I note, a woman) not find grace despite Christ insisting he thought it improper to help those outside of Israel? Remarkable story that one, Christ himself said no, and then she persisted and wins, what she knew in her heart (and I belive it was god-inspired) overcae the words that she heard, a rather good allegory for these situations I think. God's truth doesn't have clearly set boundaries, sometimes to find God, you have to leave Israel and go into Egypt, any idea of strict lines of delineation on the truth is not a christian doctrine, but paganism. I'm not saying of course, that truth is a matter of public opinion, but everyone here seems to be studiously ignoring the very plain fat that the majority of the Church itself was in favour, that actually the majority of the Church see this as God's will. When you talk as if it is only outside pressure trying to change the church you are lying to yourself. Much like when you say that the the Church and the gospel are unmoving and unchanging. It's a lie and fiction. You can't face the historical truth! You put out your own eyes and live in a fantasy land, of course the Church has changed and is always changing, of course Theology has always been done contextually, we are still in the process of discovering the fullness of the gospel. You're just putting out your own eyes for the sake of comforting delusion if you think otherwise. And two thousand years may seem a long time, but that's what? Two days in God's eyes a the psalmist writes? The time of Women bishops ay yet be far longer still. Meanwhile those at synod are also clearly wrong. As Consular so eloquently points out his 'heroic' six are also 'hypocrites'. The two things don't add up. The opponents stood there and said 'it's not about women bishops but proper provision for those who object' it's doublethink and dishonesty. If you're not against women bishops per se, then you should accept them! So here I am, caught between liars and hypocrites on one side, and here the blind who would lead the blind, who would deny the Gospel for the sake of their tradition- and thereby nullifying the word of God! For if it was not Mary Theotokos who was the first evanglist, who in carrying the body of Christ prefigured the entire Church, who has a special intercessory connection with Christ, if it was not St Mary Magdalene who was the apostle to the apostles, if it was not the women who stayed after the discipes had fled, if it was not the unamed woman who carried out the priestly act of anointing Christ before he took his throne of shame and glory, if these things wre not, then I might see your case, but as it is written 'there is neither male nor female...for you are all one in christ Jesus.' Thats your gospel. But it carries on, this absurd dance. Somehow thinking that unpopularity is proof of success. No, you can just be wrong and also unpopular, a situation we somehow find ourselves in now. All I can think to say is that we 'have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.' When of course 'It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' Truly we have strained gnats and swallowed camels. When people trundle out these stale arguments against women in the priesthood and episcopate, all I see are whitewashed tombs. And of course, one may take a stand against them on principle, even if I find their reasoning uncharitable and unsustainable, that's fine but when they start thinking that the sincere convictions of others, especially within the Church somehow don't count I think Christ speaks clearly enough:‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling-block comes! On a secondary note Stalwart- If you're referring to HTB, that's charismatic evangelical, not AC at all, definitely not liberal, and yes a significant and growing wing of anglo-catholicism finds women priests perfectly acceptable based on Scripture, reason and tradition so yes, probably should start expecting to hear them more often.
All that happened was that they kicked the can down the street. The matter will be voted on again and again until it passes. Doesn't make a difference how many years it takes. By 2017 there will be even more provinces with women bishops. What are you going to do when every province has them? Its just a matter of time.
Patrick, your anger is understandable, but please try not to call us "blind-leading-the-blind" and "whitewashed sepulchers". We frankly don't care what the majority of the Church wants; we care about what the Church needs. Somewhere between 60-70% of bishops became Arians in the 4th century, yet Arianism was an heresy. Should Athanasius have joined the "consensus" of the faithful back then? Most Anglicans are pro-women bishops because they're pro-women doctors and pro-women CEOs. It has nothing to do with right belief, which most people couldn't care less about. That is the danger. By the way, you are exhibiting a very Roman or Eastern view of the Gospel. Our understanding of it was fine in the 1st century, and it should be the same today. Truth doesn't change, understanding of such simplicity shouldn't change, and we are not on a progressive line. Either the truth was delivered once and for all to the saints, or we have no certainty and assurance of any kind, in any thing. Robert, we are going to fight to convince people that it's wrong now. No one will convince us that novelty is progress. Error can never be an advance. I am personally convinced that the Lord Jesus utterly damns and condemns the heart that wishes to alter the Word, spiritual and written. We conservatives are convicted because we are afraid of souls being lost. We will hold on, down to the last man, even if only one valid African or Asian bishop is all that's left. Pirate, very not true! What is it with everyone and just giving up? So, the world wants women to be forced into the Church at all levels, despite cosmic truth, majestic masculinity, beautiful femininity, and the differences between the sexes! So what? Why do you care? The world IS OUR ENEMY. Christ said it. They hate us because they hated Him first. There IS no unity, synergy, or synthesis. We need to hold fast, not to be molded by public opinion! Why do we even have to say this!?
Christians, I have been watching with great sadness this thread, for people who I thought were friends are now on the way of becoming enemies. It is up to God to settle who is guilty or who is not and I, for my part, refuse to play that role, especially so from my isolated location, and that, to be honest, I have been unable to force myself to keep reading half of the contents of some posts. I would just like to beg you to consider your words carefully, abstaining from condemning persons who you hardly know but who, mistakenly or not, believe different as you believe.
Not at all. Anyone can join the Church, but on the Church's terms, not on "everyone's". You seem to make the Church into a unprincipled creature who has no principles of her own. That's not what I said. What I said was that popular opinion, the will of the People, didn't matter. Only the will of the Church is what matters. The People should conform to the Church, not the Church to the People. And the Church should conform to Scripture. It's a simple system. So when you are making a clearly defined statement, such as "any idea of strict lines of dlineation is X", are you yourself being a pagan? No one is against women being evangelists. No one is against women being apostles. No one is against women being an encouragement and an example to men. Lol. Um, my Gospel is: "No woman should talk in church." "No woman should have leadership over man." "Bishop should be a man of a single wife." That's my Gospel Patrick. I thoroughly agree that women have the same dignity as men, but that does not mean they should be bishops, or lead the Church. Ughh.
If you don't want to be called blind, then could you please stop repeating the myth that this is the world forcing itself upon the church? Hundreds and hundreds of women have responded to the call of God to become priests in his church, and I don't think they're doing it to score points for secular feminism. For me, it really is a simple as that- if God has called these women to the priesthood, who am I to argue with the Almighty? They haven't been a miracle cure for the Church, but they do make up half the active clergy which is a huge contribution to the Gospel and the life of the church, and even now all clergy are overstretched, how much worse would it be if God had not brought us these workers for the harvest? God created the world, you should go back and read Irenaeus or Augustine again, there is no radical dualism between flesh and spirit, the world and christians in our religion; Creation is at its core good, redeemable and to be reasonably enjoyed. I'm also not sure an idea of 'essential difference' between the sexes is a recognisably early Chriistian position to take either- apart from Paul, most of the Fathers and the gospels seem to regard sex as incidental to a humanity who are destined for the angelic life. And I shall make no apology for a Catholic reading of scripture, because it seems more honest than this idea that the gospel was perfectly understood in the first century- this relies on another fictional idea that there was one discernable 'orthodox christianity' which everything else peeled away from...yet why do you think the NT is full of warnings about False prophets or the Fathers spend so long arguing against their opponents? It's because there were many understandings of the gospel, there were many christianities...partly because they used different texts, but as In Marcion's case, not aways. We can only really start talking of an official line of doctrine from which individuals could dissent from after 325, and as I recall the Athanasian party couldn't win the argument by arguing from texts alone, it took the authority of the Council, a source extra to the biblical texts to settle the matter...and all the 'Arian' bishops somehow managed to find it within themselves to sign the Nicene creed (even Arius himself). Arianism is just a polemical label that was applied indiscriminately by Arius to all subordinationist doctrines, most of which sprang out of a general and understandable confusion of how God could be both one and two. The issue was not clearly defined, the sides not so obviously drawn, there was no 'consensus' as such to side with, just a church wrestling for a suitable language with which to speak of God's oneness in relation to the Son. This issue today is distinctly less ambiguous I feel. Truth doesn't change, but Christian truth isn't an idea, or theory, or clutch of doctrines. It is a person. It is Christ, and the question is always 'Is christ revealed in this?' and to be honest Christianity is built entirely on change. It's about the chnge of heart, of repentance and metanoia, our vision should be radically changed by God, and we of course are never done with this process of conversion from earthly thinking to having a more heavenly perspective. You should stop worrying about whether something is 'conservative' or 'progressive', or whether it harmonizes with public opinion or not as if these are the criteria of truth. Anyway, as ++John Sentamu pointed out, everybody in Synod has, on paper agreed to Women Bishops. Those against them are now just trying to make sure they're somehow not contaminated by them. Whilst this strikes me as a somewhat logially odd position to take ('we believe women can't be bishops, but we ant to let the rest of you get on with it if you want, and despite the fact you're wrong and going against the Bible/Apostolic Tradition, we still want to be associated with this church despite its official slide into apostasy'), the simple fact is that this is a fight that's not going to end with anything other than women bishops.
And Stalwart, what can I say? Thank you for your very insightful replies, it's like I'm seeing the light, finally I understand! The Gospel is reduced to just three sentences concerning women! But I am genuinely confused, what was a apostle if not a position of authority and leadership in the NT Church? From what do Bishops derive their authority if not apostles? Women apostles to me seem to be rather a good case for women bishops. Secondly, you do realize that in 1 Corinthians, Paul simultaneously allows (1 Cor 11) and disallows (1 Cor 14) women to speak in Church? I'm not entirely sure you can draw any firm conclusions from that particular epistle.
Yes, the whole New Testament is my gospel, not just what I pick and choose. What about you? Ah my friend Patrick, it was you who reduced the Gospel to a single line, and chose to disregard every other thing that didn't toe the line. Whereas I've got much more than what I posted: God made Eve out of Adam's rib; while Eve suggests it is Adam who makes the ultimate fall. While both sin, it is Adam who is held to blame. His is the choice that mattered to all humans (including women). Similarly, it is a second Adam who redeems us. History moves between two men in world history; they are the spiritual leaders of mankind. All of the OT priests were male. The entire Church hierarchy was male and did not allow even female deacons which were accepted in the NT church. All of the NT bishops, the "Twelve", were male. Christ selected them to govern and rule the Church. Paul rejected the leadership of women. The Early Church rejected the leadership of women. (Women were baptised by female deacons, which was ok and is fine with me). Do I need to give more proof? You gave me no proof of female leadership whatsoever in your reply. You gave me instances where women were important, and mattered. As if, I say that women aren't important and don't matter, in rejecting female episcopacy. You're making hasty generalizations about those who stand on the other side from you; while those standing on the other side see a very clear mandate from God, and you are rebelling against it. This stems from a confusion in the modern world between the term 'apostle' and the term 'bishop' (episkopos). Many people were apostles in the New Testament: women, men, etc. An apostle is simply someone who brings the Gospel, it's not even a priest proper. It's an evangelist, a door-to-door preacher, if you will. Now if a strong word such as apostle has been relegated to being a door-to-door preacher, then what were those men whom we customarily call apostles? They were called in the Bible as "The Twelve". Simply as The Twelve. The presbyters were The Seventy Two, and the bishops were the Twelve. Outside of this church hierarchy that Christ selected, there were countless people who acted as 'apostoloi', bringers and spreaders of the Gospel. For a variety of reasons the word 'apostle' has been equated to 'bishop' today, which is contrary to the facts. 10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. (NKJV) What in 1 Cor 11 are you referring to?
An interesting article regarding 1 Timothy. http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/the-mistranslation-of-1-timothy-211-12/
Here is an interesting video news story from this past July, when the vote was extended to November in order to "avert complete defeat": "it would be nothing short of tragic, ... if the legislation were to flounder at this late stage" (July 2012) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18766448 Several other videos: Channel 4 coverage (understandably liberal, but with quotes from the Floor debate by the many WOMEN who voted against the measure): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrQFJMfubWo Another (liberal) video headlining more women on the Floor who argued against it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pb5L9ME8AY BBC interviews another of the women: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMvLSXCN4q4 Interviews with two members from Laity and Clergy who voted against, after the vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zyD-BU6Mus#t=1m7s Rev. Paul Plumpton arguing against it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acvYYvuQ098#t=1m I'm gladdened that the conservative voices had been heard!
4 years until this can be re-introduced, and probably 10 more until it can be decided on again! Bravo, bureaucracy (for once)!
You might not be surprised to find that I don't think all these arguments are any good. And what, you're going to criticse Christ for reducing the entire law and prophets to a single line as well? Good enough for him, good enough for you I would've thought. It's exactly this kind of pedantry that is the essence of a poor reading of scripture. As if somehow if oyu stack up precept upon precept you have made a case when you ignore the weightier matters of God. It's exactly the attitude Christ despaired of. The reading of the Scriptures is not something that happens in a vacuum but is informed by living the Christian life, the whole of Scriptures is a directive to become who we are meant to be in God, it's about living a certain kind of life in harmony with each other and God, here I find nothing more than the common error of severing 'reading' from 'living' in Christian education. The actual arguments themselves range from the contradictory to the weird. What point is this even trying to make? I don't even follow? That because a man sinned and caused the fall, women shouldn't become bishops? If anything that's a case for quite the opposite I would've thought! But I would make a bigger point which ties into the second one: Well I'm not quite sure exactly what sort of spiritual leadership I would take from Adam...but Are you seriously trying to suggest that actually the maleness of either Adam or Christ is actually important, intrinsic to the soteriological matrix that they find themselves caught in? What does that actualy say about the salvation of women? In order to save all, Christ's particular gender has to be entirely incidental to his character, perhaps excepting the utility of eing a male rabbi in first century palestine. To suggest that somehow his or Adam's 'maleness' matter in this equation of sin and redemption is clearly a misstep. There is of course also the fact that Adam is a mythological figure, you can't really claim history moves around his point, seeing as he didn't exist. the twelve bishops? Now who's sowing confusion between bishops and apostles? Christ didn't appoint bishops, but they did grow out of the itinerant activity of the apostles and it is from that apostolic authority the episcopal authority derives. But of course, your definition of the apostle is so painfully and obviously inaccurate, as well as your assertion that ruling was given to just the twelve, as even the merest glance at all the instructions that Paul, on his authority as an apostle gives, that it's barely worth labouring over. It's not to deny that the apostleship is based around a presenting of the message of the gospel, but clearly in declaring and expaining it one would have to give instruction on how it applied to various parts of life, the apostles would be leaders in their communities because they could give authoratative instructions on what Gospel living was about. On the matter of celibacy, Paul of course doesn't even invoke the divine authority but gives his own opinion and expects it to be regarded. Also if you deny the leadership authority of an apostle you've basically pulled the rug out from under your feet, or have you simply forgotten that the criterion for what counted as the authoratative NT canon was apostolic authorship? By virtue of the apostleship they have a teaching authority over the whole church throughout all the ages. If you deny the apostles as having real authority over the church then you may as well consign use your bible for kindling and toilet paper. Even if, of course you are right (Which you aren't) it's still a contradictory position to take in light of the fact you've cited as authoratative the passage about women being silent, yet somehow you say you accept women evangelists and apostles, I'm intrigued to know how this works in practice? The silent proclamation of women door-to-door? Why not just throw in the I will not perit a woman to teach'? Tell me how they can be equivalent to the apostles then if they're not allowed to instruct. I gave you examples of women carrying out priestly activity, baring forth Christ to the world (none of which you actually argued against) which is surely the real issue, women in leadership is relatively simple no? Or are Deborah, Miriam (Micah 6:4) and Huldah just a bit too inconvenient? Or if it's about women's authority, just how do you explain away the Queen as supreme governor of the Church? Truth is, I hope these things you suggested were not your 'big guns' because quite honestly, they aren't even fig leaves of a defence. There is though this issue With the proviso of 'what eventuallybecame the Early Church that we knw from extant records' of course, then one must agree. If anything, I suspect it is this break with contnuity that most conservatives feel uncomfortable about. But breaks with continuity are fine The first one in Christianity was the Incarnation, and the last one is the Apocalypse, everything else in between? The Church once barred menstruating women from receiving communion, a venerable 1,700 year old tradition, anciently speaking, The Church used to insist it had no power to declare the remittance of sin for murder adultery and apostasy leavng someone doing a lifetime of penance, what happened to that I wonder? Or indeed the idea of lengthy penances at all, once so common in the Church. The prohibition on women without their heads covered? The big one of course is slavery. The idea that Christianity can have no truck with it is absolutely true...but the idea that Christian texts condemn it wold be a lie. Indeed when the conservative opposition to 'progressives' who were denouncing slavery argued they had the weight of tradition and scrpture on their side they were in a sense right. but of course, they were wrong. And truthfully, the context is different, but I think this basically is the same issue: one hermeneutic versus another one, and I only hope that in a couple of generations, future christians will look on these arguments as bizarre and wronheaded as we look on one's in favour of slavery. I find this article useful: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/07/female-apostles-fine-for-jesus though I appear to have borrowed most of my points from it.
So, the Church Of England accepts that women can and should be ordained, and that this is strongly supported by Scripture. And now 40% of the laity has decided that these priests cannot be bishops. And this inconsistency matters little to most of those who post here. They applaud the absurdity of it all. Yes, it might take another decade to have CofE join the other provinces that allow their priests to be consecrated as bishops. By that time, ALL the CofE diocese will have women priests, and the laity who voted against women bishops will be long gone form the CofE. After all, the issue for them was NOT women bishops at all. They wanted to flex their muscles before they left, the last gasp cry against women priests. Of course, nothing will stop the ordaining of women priests within the Anglican Communion.
Why are you bothering discussing these strange arguments? They were all discussed and rejected when the ordination of women as priests was accepted by the Church of England and most of the Anglican Communion. Our priests and bishops are in accord with regard to the Scriptural arguments against excluding women from the office of bishop. Curiously, those who want to exclude women bishops have almost no support from their own bishops. Somehow these few laity, many of whom don't even believe in bishops, have delayed women bishops for another few years. These folks will be long gone by next time. They will not be able to spend another 5 or 10 years watching more and more women ordained as priests and rising to leadership roles.
Unless someone can show us definitively that women were bishops in the Catholic Universal Church (no ambiguous anonymous wall paintings that could've been made by Montanists or Marcionites), we cannot accept this. There will always be a remnant under at least one bishop who refuses this insane novelty. Will Anglicanism - being a big tent - allow him and his flock to be in communion with the greater Communion?
Carful about counting the chickens. I don't know how much of the British News you watch, but the backlash in the media has been rather fierce. They're talking quite openly of our irrelevance and misogyny, the loss of our moral credibility and of disestablishment. Parliament is rattling its sabre; the PM has already weighed in on Synod's decision, MPs are talking of revoking the CoE's exemption from equalities legislaton in order to force the issue. The anger and confusion both within and from outside the Church is palpable. Of course it is far too soon to judge what will come on this, but I dont think it will be 5 years before this is solved, especially given the overwhelming support from the grassroots and the leadership. Better that than provoking a crisis by having Parliament dictate to the Church its own arrangements of polity. Outside the world of Church wrangling, it seems David Cameron has already decided he's going to speed up the gay marriage legislation: Church opposition is morally counting for less and less already. This could go a lot of ways- a hasty revote on the issue may well allo the church to save some public face, it could provoke a constitutional crisis and disestablishment, it could kick te Church into accepting at least the blessing of Civil Partnerships in Church. Whatever happens though it remains true that we set up stumbling blocks for ourselves and those we wish to engage with- the CoE is fast becoming regarded like the RC church in the UK; people completely ignore and even react quite violently against literally whatever that Church says, beating it over the head for its stance on women, paedophile clergy, contraception and homosexuality. The CoE has managed to escape this largely because it has been able to write off the crazies as minority wings of the Church but now they seem to have taken the centre...This is honetly asking for trouble. I think even the most stubborn and immovable opposition can act as a whetstone with hich to sharpen our own arguments, and I think we might have quite a lot of expaining to do to people in the near future, so it never hurts to rehearse one's own position, especially in the face of inevitable questions I also do it because although I doubt anyone will be convinced, I hope to show that this is not a matter of secular politics, but of theological conviction...I really sincerely and utterly believe women bishops to be God's Will. I want to articulate that the conviction of faith doesn't always lead to their dark and unhappy conclusions. Our silence only strengthens the fiction that 'real christianity' involves dogmatic narrowness and intransigence. Peculiarly, this is a view they hold in common wth their most outspoken atheist critics.