The commentary to the language of the amendment at TA is instructive.
Dear old Solomon in all his glory could not split the proverbial baby in two any better than this.
Of course all you have is a divided baby but then it is easier to maintain the pretense of unity, even when certain folks refuse to be ministered to or receive communion from certain other folks who apparently have “the same legal rights” if not the same standing as God’s ministers.
Falderal.
....
What provision is there for those who cannot accept the ministry of male bishops? Come on - fair's fair.
....
As someone noted years ago, this is totally equitable: the rich are as prohibited from sleeping under bridges as are the poor. Will a parish in a male-led diocese be allowed to request episcopal function from a female bishop?
....
I suggest that ‘co-ordinate’ bishops carry their mitres under their arms, and single bishops can put them on their heads.
And noting that Pluralist posted the final comment which I quoted, you may want to check out his blog post titled Two for Tea, which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this post.
UPDATE: Andrew Brown in the Guardian.
Note: Both Andrew and Adrian (Pluralist) are English.
Mimi, did you read this hilarious blog post by Andrew Brown in The Guardian?
ReplyDeletePenny
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jun/21/anglicanism-schori-mitre-bishops-synod
Penny, thanks. I'd been sent the link earlier, but I hadn't had time to read the column. Now I have, and I will link in an update.
ReplyDeleteYou know I finally think these not-so-gents have FINALLY exposed themselves (capes instead of double breasted) for the real live spooky/scared non-leaders they really are...The ABC doesn´t use common sense and The Lord of York is a Grandstanding silly goose!
ReplyDeleteWhen are they going to send in the REAL Women and Men for Leadership at The Church of England, Anglican Communion? These boys need resign!
Anglican DEATH by Affixation: Muddled to death with ++Ebor at Lambeth Palace!
Leo, I shake my head in disbelief. Where is the Gospel message in all of this legalese?
ReplyDeleteAnd these are not even amendments -- just descriptions of and excuses for what they intend to propose as amendments.
ReplyDeleteSort of a "run it up the flagpole and see who bows down and worships it" kind of a flyer.
Oh. You see, Paul (A.)? I didn't work that out. That's what you're here for.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with Andrew Brown.
This looks like a recipe for endless conflict.
Fred Schwartz also deftly points out that the amendment proposed by Canterbury and York would enshrine border-crossings as a principle of Church of England ecclesiology.
ReplyDeletewv = bablebr
(brother who speaks incomprehensibly)
I don't want to be rude(we Amercans never do when confronted with an Oxford-inflected accent), but the English misogynists are, really, up sh-t creek with respect to women in the episcopate. We've heard the theology of Rome, and we don't buy it. So, let this absurd wanking be the next exhibit of why TEC NEEDS to gracefully exit ++Rowan's Communion.
ReplyDeletePaul (A.), yes, indeed. No wonder we get no sympathy from the ABC for having our borders invaded.
ReplyDeleteJohn, what about the people from other provinces, including the Church of England, who plead with us to stay? I feel a responsibility to them. We must continue to move forward toward full justice and equality in TEC. But, at the same time, I think we should fight for our place at the table, without compromising our principles, for the sake of those outside TEC who look to us for support.
I once thought as you do, but I've changed my mind - for the sake of the others.
Grandmère, logically one would have to include allowances for those parishes that wish to have a female Bishop from another diocese preside informally. And any Diocese that could not in good conscience follow their male Archbishop should be allowed to follow a female Presiding Bishop...
ReplyDeleteI also concede your point. No matter how irritating the Mad Hatter of Kent may be, we should stick to the communion like glue. Turn the other cheek and all that. But we should not allow them to dictate to us like the Romans do.
Word Verification elstsphy, I hope it's not catching...
What annoys me more than the silliness of the idea itself is the fact that General Synod has clearly opted against compromise twice now.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the mind of the church only carry weight when it's in the Archbishop's favour?
And any Diocese that could not in good conscience follow their male Archbishop should be allowed to follow a female Presiding Bishop...
ReplyDeleteWade, that opens up a can of worms, surely. The ABC has no concept of the ripple effect of his proposed legislation.
We stick to our principles, and if we go, it will be because we are thrown out.
Why does the mind of the church only carry weight when it's in the Archbishop's favour?
Erika, yes! Why?
Rowan will go to almost any lengths to hang on to the bishops, priests, and laypersons who threaten to go over to Rome, but, in the end, nothing will satisfy them. They will either go, or they will stay. Rowan should do what's right and call their bluff.
Call their bluff, Mimi? He might well be right behind them out the door!
ReplyDeleteWell, then, Paul (A.), I'm sure you know the old saying, "Shit, or get off the pot."
ReplyDelete