Saturday, July 10, 2010

Synod- a distraction from running

As I type I have half an eye on the tweets coming through from Synod. I guess its a bit like civil servants listening to the budget; these conversations have job implications for me. Thats not me trying to suggest I should be a Bishop but the amendments and so on will affect which bits of the UK's inner cities will accept women priests.

I have also been interested in the media picking up on Jeffrey John allegedly not getting Bishop of Southwark. Thank you people in charge for putting that appointment on hold. Please media don't try an link his appointment to the debate over women Bishops.

There is a certain naivety about putting the two issues together. It was played out in Rev. this week (perhaps accurately) and really pains me. The issues are different- the foundational issues are different... please can we allow ourselves to sort out one thing at a time.

3 comments:

Cioara Andrei said...

Foarte interesant subiectul deybatut de tine.M-am uitat pe blogul tau si imi place ce am vazut, cu siguranta am sa mai revin o zi buna!

rach said...

The issues are different foundationally, theologically...

The similarities are in the procedural precedents which are being set.

Alex said...

I'm not sure we can expect people outside the church to understand the nuances which make some believe that one form of exclusion is more acceptable than another, especially as conservative evangelicals consistently use the same overarching reason - the authority of scripture - to exclude both groups.

I appreciate there is a pragmatic and political reason for separating the two. (ie. more of the church currently objects to gays than to women in leadership, and many would seek to justify that distinction theologically).

But maybe it would be better for the integrity of the church if we were to follow Tutu's example and learn from our own experiences of exclusion, however significant, to stand alongside other excluded groups, rather than distancing ourselves from the less palatable ones for political advantage. (I realise that's not what you're saying here, but it does so often seem to be the way that progress is made in the church, which saddens me)