tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post2985111061921947065..comments2024-03-19T05:32:07.475+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: Was there a 'deliberate oversight' in the proposed Measure on women bishops?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-51594478769057695702012-05-30T10:34:32.127+01:002012-05-30T10:34:32.127+01:00"One does have to ask the question; if the C ..."One does have to ask the question; if the C of E is so oppressive then why not leave, start a new denomination and show us how it's done? The threats seem to lack a bit of sincerity."<br /><br />Absolutely. Independent Bible based churches with an Anglican flavour have been started quite successfully - look at Christchurch Durham, or Dundonald and others in South West London.<br /><br />And there are plenty of Bible based churches without an Anglican flavour that would be satisfactory to many conservative evangelicals.<br /><br />Conservative evangelicals fight the wrong battles in the C of E. They should concentrate on devising ways of stripping power from bishops and transferring it to individual churches and their PCCs - say it is in the name of democracy. Within a generation, liberal Anglicanism would be bust and dead.<br /><br />Well done for getting out. I didDavid Watershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01744348689409622220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-57410394669311708512012-05-30T04:21:31.372+01:002012-05-30T04:21:31.372+01:00This amendment doesn't matter. It won't b...This amendment doesn't matter. It won't be enforced. It can be written into the law, but it will only require the bishop to justify any decision he wants to make. That standard will not be difficult to achieve. In any case, the condition would be removed at the first opportunity. Even if it would enforced, that window will remain open for a very short period of time. These amendments offer only the illusion of protection.<br /><br />Opponents of WO are being offered two choices: Submit or leave. Those have always been the choices. The ultimate test of authority is being able to compel those who reject that authority. That is the one non-negotiable position of the other side. They demand as a condition for remaining that opponents submit in order to prove the authority of women bishops. Opponents can believe privately whatever they like, but they cannot act on those beliefs. That is the only accommodation that is in fact being offered.<br /><br />carlcarl jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05195615264891904953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-81084506474283210612012-05-29T23:37:56.846+01:002012-05-29T23:37:56.846+01:00John,
I read your post with interest. I am not par...John,<br />I read your post with interest. I am not part of the CofE but I follow with interest the various conflagrations that the church is going through. It upsets me to see how the church tears itself apart over what to some may seem trivial issues. I know that doctrinal issues are in fact extremely important as if error creeps in then the spirit can move out.<br />The ultimate issue is unity, not at any price, but unity in the love of Christ. We are told to be content wherein we find ourselves and if personal ambition brings about discord then the message of the Holy Spirit is clearly not being listened to. It is surely better to abandon or at least defer personal ambitions in favour of allowing the church to do its job of reaching the lost and caring for the flock.Integrityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01403843427007644914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-67679380302564520872012-05-29T16:47:37.413+01:002012-05-29T16:47:37.413+01:00There is a bit flippy floppy logic there. "Tr...There is a bit flippy floppy logic there. "Traditionalists" shouldn't be able to choose their Bishop... but we can't have any Traditionalist bishops (see WATCH reaction to new bishop of Chichester).<br /><br />One does have to ask the question; if the C of E is so oppressive then why not leave, start a new denomination and show us how it's done? The threats seem to lack a bit of sincerity.<br /><br />Of course, when you say, "we all knew what we were letting ourselves in for", we didn't. Goal posts have been moved.<br /><br />Having said that I am leaving the denomination (although not solely over this issue). But I can't imagine a revisionist ever leaving for a more 'progressive' option. Just hot air.<br /><br />Darren Moore<br />TranmereDarrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-12418373496172459712012-05-29T15:20:56.951+01:002012-05-29T15:20:56.951+01:00Hi John,
Thanks for this post and thanks for all ...Hi John,<br /><br />Thanks for this post and thanks for all the work you and others have been doing behind the scenes on the legislation. Similar thoughts concerning the reaction of WATCH to the amendments had crossed my mind. It has concerned me for a while that the 'male bishop' issue hasn't been more prominent in the debate and so I took heart from Archbishop Rowan's remarks to Synod in February and the three principles agreed by the House of Bishops in their introduction to the draft code of practice.<br /><br />Apart from the actual improvement to the legislation brought about by these amendments perhaps they bring a new clarity/honesty to the debate? It seems that one approach being considered by some is to get the amendments withdrawn through adjourning the debate in Synod and returning the draft back to the Bishops. I've no idea how likely such an outcome is but were it to happen wouldn't it make for an instructive debate in General Synod? One wonders how many members of GS had been under similar misapprehensions and how the numbers might stack up if it became clear that the legislation really would end anything like the accommodation of diverse views allowed by the Act of Synod? I suspect it would test the depth and width of the pro camp in a way that they have avoided so far.<br /><br />best wishes,<br /><br />Matt (Kettering)Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11186379309758091721noreply@blogger.com