tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post8465560896114200967..comments2024-03-28T08:30:20.260+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: When Synods 'fail'Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-16088663870696730632008-04-05T11:30:00.000+02:002008-04-05T11:30:00.000+02:00Thanks Alice for saying it more conscily than I co...Thanks Alice for saying it more conscily than I could.<BR/><BR/>When Traditionalists loose votes they are disapointed, perhaps whine but they either lump it or leave. Could you imagine the ordination of women being reversed?<BR/><BR/>Revisionists just keep coming back and back at an issue until it changes. Which means they are using Synods whilst not trusting them.<BR/><BR/>Darren Moore (Tranmere)Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-29059804279897431832008-04-04T08:44:00.000+02:002008-04-04T08:44:00.000+02:00Activists always express indignation when their ca...Activists always express indignation when their cause is defeated, but they never give up. As a former TEC women priest who has come to her senses, I applaud the Synod's decision. I hope this will give thinking Anglicans pause to think more critically about the question of women priests.<BR/><BR/>I've expressed my thoughts on the matter here: http://descant.classicalanglican.net/?p=2331<BR/><BR/>Here is a snippet of an interview done by Wim Houtman of the Nederlands Dagblat: http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/articles/article.php?id=124Alice C. Linsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13069827354696169270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-55023935486195319412008-04-03T19:12:00.000+02:002008-04-03T19:12:00.000+02:00Let me be quite clear: I am not saying Synods neve...Let me be quite clear: I am not saying Synods never get it wrong. The point of Article 21 is that they do. However, the Article's position is, and our presumption should be, that when they do so this is because of a lack of obedience to the Spirit and the Word of God, particularly when they do this in "things pertaining unto God" (rather than in, say, passing the budget, instituting a new administrative policy, or taking an initiative in mission). Mistakes are made in all areas, including (perhaps especially) merely matters of administrative policy, but our response in the latter case should be at most exasperation, not outrage.<BR/><BR/>Here, however, the Church was dealing with a significant shift in doctrinal understanding - something which ought always to be undertaken, if at all, in 'fear and trembling'. Moreover, the vote was to continue doing what the Church has always done - not consecrating women as bishops.<BR/><BR/>Outrage, in this case, demonstrates both an absolute conviction that one is right and an equal conviction that the Synod is, collectively, wrong precisely in a thing "pertaining unto God". Indeed, it must be assumed, further, that the Church has been wrong in this regard for some time past - perhaps always.<BR/><BR/>This ought, at very least, to evoke more than a resolve to try again later. Rather, there should be self-examination: "Have I got this right?" And if the answer is still in the affirmative, then there should be an equally honest appraisal of the Synod and the Church. In this case, the proponents of change should state clearly, "The Synod has erred and the Church is being led into unfaithfulness."<BR/><BR/>However, as the Articles of the Church of England make clear, one had better be well-equipped with evidence for one's own position from the Word of God. Not having heard or read the debate in Wales, I do not know to what extent the Bible was used in support of the change, but I would be willing to engage with whatever positive arguments were put forward.<BR/><BR/>In the end, personal conscience <I>must</I> be one's own guide, but always bearing in mind Oliver Cromwell's dictum: "consider you may be wrong." This is not, however, what I am hearing from those whose proposals the Synod of the Church decided to reject.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-22079487743169328032008-04-03T17:50:00.000+02:002008-04-03T17:50:00.000+02:00Darren, you are right to bring conformity with tra...Darren, you are right to bring conformity with tradition and biblical principles into the issue here, in a way which John did not clearly do. The problem is that on issues like this both sides can appeal to their own interpretations of tradition and Scripture.<BR/><BR/>So who is the arbiter in disputed cases? Your individual consciences Or the Synod? Or your conscience when the Synod vote goes against you, but the Synod when it accepts your position?Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-65649054303550238112008-04-03T15:26:00.000+02:002008-04-03T15:26:00.000+02:00It is interesting how we see this work on a smalle...It is interesting how we see this work on a smaller scale.<BR/><BR/>Take resolutions A&B for a PCC. If it has been discussed, say 15 years ago, the attitude of some on the PCC (all those pro-ordination of women) always seems to be, "this has been discussed and decided". When it is to make a change from a received view, as is the case here people will bring it back time and time again - usually the same people who are quick to say, "it has been decided".<BR/><BR/>I suppose the thing about Synod (which is why Peter's comments might not be fair) is does it have the right to over turn 2,000 years of interpretation and practice by the show of hands?<BR/><BR/>Revisionists only have Synod to give them authority. Without they have no leg to stand on. Traditionalists can point Biblically and historically in how Synod has erred.<BR/><BR/>Darren Moore (Tranmere)Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-64161040962968659192008-04-03T13:22:00.000+02:002008-04-03T13:22:00.000+02:00(Chelmsford)So, if the General Synod of the Church...(Chelmsford)<BR/><BR/>So, if the General Synod of the Church of England accepts women bishops with no provision for conscientious objection, or requires you to preach that homosexual intercourse is entirely acceptable, or something else which goes against your conscience and your personal understanding of God's will (and yes, I would probably agree with you on the homosexual issue), will you accept such decisions graciously and without outrage? You have to be prepared to take this both ways.Peter Kirkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13395635409427347613noreply@blogger.com