Tuesday, 22 May 2012

Women bishops legislation

The Church of England House of Bishops has issued a statement about the draft legislation to go before the General Synod in July.
Read it here 
There's not much comment out there as yet. 
This interested observer from across the river (the Wye, that is!) will leave it for those directly involved to reflect on its possible implications. Links to any analysis etc. from Forward in Faith and other orthodox sources will be posted as and when it occurs.
"Thinking Anglicans"  already has this rather predictable response from WATCH 
"WATCH (Women and the Church) is deeply disappointed to hear that the all male House of Bishops has, in a closed meeting, decided to make two amendments to the draft legislation on women bishops that had been so carefully crafted after years of debate and scrutiny from all sides and had commanded the support of 42/44 dioceses across the Church of England.They have failed to listen to the voice of ordained women and those who support their ministry and been swayed by those who are opposed into making concessions that can only undermine the ministry of women in future years.Their decision to intervene in this way will significantly undermine the credibility of the House of Bishops both inside and outside the Church."
So, it may not be enough - no statutory provision -  although it does seem to provide for the continuation of the sees of Ebbsfleet, Richborough and Beverley.

The WITCH WATCH response (I make no apology for repeating the rather ancient wittticism after this ghastly press release following the appointment of the new Bishop of Chichester - it suggests insanely that they have the support of St Richard of Chichester!) makes me think it can't all be bad news for those who, despite everything, are intending to stay and fight to the bitter end... 

1 comment:

  1. I'm a fine one to talk but... stay on if you can.

    Viz. the bishops. Why is it that the turkeys so persistently vote for Christmas? You'd think they'd at least 'do the math', which in the U.S. is a loss of 50,000 people annually. But no, that's apparently beyond them.


Anonymous comments will not be published