[faithandlife] COMMENT FROM CHURCH TIMES UK

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : June 2006 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: charles scott <crscottblu@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 05:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Brothers+

A real blessing of the APA Synod was that we didn't
have to deal with a collision course from within.

Charles+
"-------------------------------------

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk

Women bishops — a collision course? 

THE WAY in which the Church of England has handled the
issue of women bishops is embarrassing. Twelve years
after the vote to ordain women as priests, six years
after the commissioning of a detailed report on the
theology of women bishops, two years after the
report’s publication, one year after a vote in the
General Synod to set in train the process of removing
legal obstacles to women bishops, six months after
another Synod voted to explore Transferred Episcopal
Authority (TEA), the Church finds itself almost back
at square one. 

Next month’s Synod meeting is to be asked to affirm
that women bishops would be consonant with the faith
of the Church, and to approve the formation of a
legislative drafting group — without having given such
a group any indication of the sort of legislation
required. Despite all this time and effort, the Church
is no nearer to agreeing a plan to accommodate those
who oppose women bishops.

The TEA proposals were effectively shot down by the
Bishops of Guildford and Gloucester, who were charged
with developing them in the light of comments from the
various lobby groups and a set of ecumenical
observers. The two bishops uncovered serious
reservations on both sides, and a high level of
bewilderment among the ecumenical observers. Their
report is full of seemingly incompatible remarks, such
as "The Church of England should not seem grudging
about the ordination of women," and "further
impairment of communion would not be good for the
spiritual life of our country."

The House of Bishops concluded that a workable TEA
scheme was still some way off, and that, in any case,
serious theological and ecclesiological questions
needed to be addressed first. The Synod’s task will be
to make something of this shambles. Traditionalists
fear that, without a negotiated agreement, the issue
will be decided on a show of strength. They recognise
that the majority want to open the episcopate to women
(synodical voting stands at about 75 per cent). They
have been assured that no one wants them to form a
separate Church. The paradox is that, if the Synod
does indeed reject TEA because it looks too much like
the establishment of a separate Church,
traditionalists will feel pushed out anyway, unless
something emerges from the longer period of reflection
that the Bishops think is needed.

The election by the General Convention of the Rt Revd
Katharine Jefferts Schori as the next Presiding Bishop
of ECUSA will give us an early lesson in how
collegiality, one of the sticking points in England,
might work between bishops, or in this instance
Primates, who don’t recognise each other’s orders. The
dysfunction of the Primates’ Meeting in Dromantine
last year did not bode well. In any case, the
inability of the General Convention to agree anything
that might reconcile ECUSA with its critics means that
Bishop Jefferts Schori’s gender is a relatively minor
item on the agenda — as it should be.