Church OKs Women Bishops
July 8th 2008 03:15
What would Jesus do?
All three Houses of the synod – bishops, clergy and laity – voted by large margins for the ordination of women bishops without any special arrangements to accommodate traditionalists who opposed the move.
The bishops voted in favour 28 to 12, the clergy by 124 to 44 and the Laity by 111 to 68, despite pleas from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who both argued for amendments that would keep the dissenters happy.
Traditionalists, neo-Catholics and fundamentalist evangelicals, who all refuse to accept female authority over them, must now bow to the decision, or leave the church.
15 Anglican provinces – including Canada, New Zealand, Cuba and Australia –already have women bishops and none of them have any form provisions for a "church within a church".
Just before the synod a group of anglo-catholics let it be known they had been in talks with the Catholic church over transferring their allegiance to Rome, but if the idea was to pressure the synod into accommodating them, it has backfired spectacularly.
In Jerusalem recently a new body was set up, known as the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. Composed of these same disaffected groups, who also oppose gay clergy and gay relationship recognition, FOCAs stopped short of an outright split with Canterbury.
The synod’s decision in effect calls their bluff, daring them to break away from the Anglican church completely, something they have so far shrunk from doing because they would be unable to take the income, endowments and property with them. They would have to give away all that they have and begin afresh with nothing.
The decision also challenges the Archbishop of Canterbury to get off the fence, put the full weight of his authority behind the synod decision, and let the chips fall where they may.
Hang onto your mitres, it’s going to be a bumpy ride!!
| 62 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Triple B
SPL Focus
Black Books
Comment by Anonymous
First of all, the Abp. of Canterbury has no, and I mean NO, authority whatsoever. He has no moral authority and lately he has no political or even shown the slightest degree of spiritual authority.
Rowan Williams is no Thomas Cramner. He is a mere whisper of what even an acolyte should be, much less a deacon, priest, bishop and archbishop should be. He is Neville Chamberlain in clerical drag. But I daresay that even Chamberlain showed more backbone when he took on Hitler for invading Poland. Williams would go into his damn study and ponder, and ponder, and ponder what went wrong. This man is a weakling. But your steadfast exhortations of his recent speech speak just as loudly about where your're coming from as well.
What went wrong the the Ch. of England is what went wrong with Anglicanism in the US, Canada and most other WASP nations representing the old Empire; but not so with Uganda and Nigeria.
When I hear the homosexuals and women decrying the protests of the traditionalists and howling of recent "oppression" or "persecution," let them spare us all of such tripe when the true historical record reveals who really suffered for Our Lord. It hasn't been the blue bloods in the UK, but those who stood up to the Generals and Muslims in Nigeria and Idi Amin in Uganda.
Jesus said he didn't come to change anything in Scripture and he meant just that. In saying so, he also said by implication that we have no rights in doing so either. But that's exactly what white liberal guilt-laden Anglican heterosexuals and males have done, with respect to ordaining active gay priests and bishops, and of course, women as priests and bishops. In
so doing, and by trying to be all things to all people, the establishment wing of the Anglican "Communion" has reduced a once proud institution into another lovey-dovey feel good club, devoid of any scriptural foundations, theological doctrines and moral backbone.
I hope ever one of those dissident priests and bishops come to Rome. And oh, by the way, how can you explain that Catholicism is the fastest growing Christian Church in the UK. History does have a way of reversing itself when people are finally exposed to the truth. They like it, they love it and they want more of it.
Both Rowan WIlliams and what's left of the official Anglican establishment ought best to heed the words of Leo Amery, MP who told Chamberlain he'd been in power too long to be of any value. "In the name of God, go!"
Comment by Doug Pollard
Current Affairs
Rainbow Reporter
Lacking the courage of his own convictions, he has bent over backwards to appease the minority who oppose women and gay priests and bishops.
Now that his back is to the wall I hope he rediscovers his spine and his pre-elevation convictions.
Moral authority is all Canterbury has ever had, since the Anglican church is not a medieval autocracy like Rome, and it has never been built on a uniform theological basis, either, but on an accommodation between the two main wings.
Rome is always quick to sniff any opportunity to foment schism, so Benedict must be licking his chops over this one.
As to 'scriptural authority', well, you can find texts to support both sides of these arguments, and biblical scholars, too. But this is not about theology.
This is a political split masquerading as theological: it's about the previously controlling male supremacist group, now in it's death throes, making one last desperate grab for power.
Like angry toddlers they cling on, screaming, mine, mine! Let them go, if they dare. The church is better off without them.