Parishes will now get to pick their own bishop for anything now - not just women's ordination? That *does* seem like a tremendously stupid move on the bishops' part.

What a dreadful idea. Despite all that has come before this, I'm still genuinely shocked that Archbishop Williams would endorse such a fundamentally un-catholic undermining of the authority of diocesan bishops.

This is also about money. Evangelicals (and perhaps A-Cs) have money and use it unabashedly as a stick. Latitudinarians (most of us) and liberals have money but often lack the passion to use it well, or as a stick!

But we know know the real value of Diocesan votes in England. 42 is not enough to defeat 2 + $$$.

I do hope they adopt the measure, though so women can be in purple, and once established get rid of this "compromise". But this also tells us that the Bishops and Archbishops there have learned nothing about the uselessness of appeasing bullies and tantrum throwers.

It is far beyond bad ecclesiology, it has descended into fiscal cravenness.

It sounds like a certain Anglo-Catholicism as in holding a high view of the episcopate but not wishing to have anything to do with the diocesan bishop. Compromising the catholicity of the episcopate in order to placate those opposed to the ordination of women and/or the appointment of women as bishops is incredibly stupid. But it is the sort of thing that is to be expected under this failed Archbishop of Canterbury, who cannot lead an institution.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Technically, Bill, they can only invoke that choice when they have a female bishop appointed in their diocese.

But exactly how this will play out and what other future exceptions will be built on this precedent is certainly up for debate.

In the ABC/ABY statement you find this,

"The amendment requires the Code of Practice which the bishops will draw up to offer guidance as to how this might be achieved. This was already something the bishops and the Synod would have been able to include in the Code. The change is that they will now have to include such guidance. It does not give parishes the right to 'choose their own bishop' or insist that their bishop has a particular set of beliefs. It allows them to ask for episcopal ministry, as spelled out in Clause 2 of the Measure, only on the grounds of theological conviction about women's ordained ministry. The precise wording in the Code remains something for the Bishops and Synod to determine but it attempts to take seriously the fact that, as has been clear all along, simply providing any male bishop would not do justice to the theological convictions lying behind requests from some parishes."

It appears to be a direct response to what Brown states which is,

"I suspect that a certain discomfort about the naked gender discrimination implied here led some bishops who should have known better to suppose they could get round the problem by allowing parishes to discriminate against men who have the wrong views about anything the parochial church council believes and not just about gender roles. But, actually, that doesn't help at all. To give parishes the legal right to choose their bishops is wholly incompatible with the way the Church of England has always worked before, so it's a nice irony that it should be brought forward by "traditionalists". It's also incompatible with the Church of England functioning as any kind of organisation in the future. It's no longer one church if every parish can choose any bishop."

If the ABC/ABY are taken at their word, that means when a parish wants to choose its own bishop (on whatever grounds) all it needs to do is to be careful to frame its objection to a proposed delegated bishop in terms of his slackness on women. It encourages open gender discrimination. Which I suppose is a better than the alternative of cloaking it.

Whichever way, it's a suicide note. Equal only means equal. Time for the equivocating fence sitters to wake up and smell the coffee.

Not to mix metaphors, but do you suppose the HOB has inserted a poison pill into the legislation?

So instead of a particular set of beliefs, it is just one belief that the provided bishop must hold?

What happens if and when no such bishop is available? How long can one have a church in which bishops sit on a bench or in a house with other bishops whom they do not recognize as bishops? Will these "special" one-issue bishops continue to be among those who lay hands on new bishops -- and will they do so joining with bishops who do not share their views on the "one" theological conviction? Or will that render them insufficiently theologically "convicted"?

The implications of this sort of narrow confessionalism -- a one article creed -- seem to run against both good order or the idea of "focus of unity" or "bishop for the whole church."

So what happens down the road when a male priest who is ordained by a woman bishop is rejected by a parish because HIS ordination is tainted by girl cooties?

Reminds me of a story I heard three decades and more ago, when our diocesan bishop joked about what goes on exactly, when bishops gather around obscuring from view the bishop to be, at the moment of laying on of hands.

" Why, they are removing his back bone of course".

Might I suggest that women simply form their own version of the Anglican Communion? Boys are always reluctant to play politely.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Even in the Episcopal Church we have DEPO, and recently it was voted in by the HoB for it to go both ways, for more "liberal" parishes in conservative dioceses and more "conservative" parishes in liberal dioceses/liberal leadership. So how can we complain about the CoE enacting something similar? Even when it comes down to clergy seeking assignment in parishes here, those parishes can still reject on any bases they see fit, even gender. No parish is forced to call a female or anyone else they don't want.

According to Andrew Brown in the Guardian, here's what the fuss is about, Nicole:

"The present code of practice makes it possible for parishes to reject the ministry of women but it was introduced in the clear expectation that such parishes would die out. Enshrining the veto in law makes it much less likely than they will, and it also introduces an unmistakable element of gender discrimination into the law. That will confront parliament (which also must approve the law) with quite a tricky problem.

To give parishes the legal right to choose their bishops is wholly incompatible with the way the Church of England has always worked before, so it's a nice irony that it should be brought forward by "traditionalists".

Susan Russell
Diocese of Los Angeles

What is the difference between this and DEPO which we have here in TEC? Because honestly, I'm not seeing much.

The article ends with "One might note that we in the Episcopal Church have been told a lot lately about how voting creates winners and losers and we need to find another way forward. This is the other way forward. Small groups in small rooms deciding who will pay the price to mollify angry minorities." Well, this is another way to do it. And the flaws in this system don't actually deny the divisiveness of voting on every aspect of the church.

This legislation goes a step further than DEPO - where if the woman is a bishop - the male bishop goes to a church under her authority. In this scenario - the male goes on his and allows the church to not recognize their own bishop. It is the Donatist heresy - that the sacraments are somehow affected by the person bearing them. The male bishop also has to be totally "untainted" - never ordaining a woman or being in any line of succession (laying on of hands for ordination) where women have been ordained.
The other point is that this was rejected in 42 of 44 dioceses - it is a backdoor appeasement that even so those who oppose the ordination of women as priests or bishops are still not satisfied as it does not go far enough.

Well, FWIW I think DEPO is a bad idea too. Does that mean I should be able to get a bishop for my parish who agrees with my position on DEPO, by means of DEPO.

"Choosing teachers to ones liking" was never a good idea. People learn and grow when they are challenged, not when they are placated.

Bishop Alan Wilson in the comments to his post "Cooking the Curate's Egg":

"I'm also really impatient with the way dealing with this issue the way we have makes it impossible, for some reason, to celebrate the pure joy and privilege of the ministry of, (in my episcopal area) over a hundred (mainly) superb colleagues because it is supposed in some way to be impolite to those who believe they don't exist as priests."

That is the tragedy, that in the end, whenever women are permitted to become proper bishops in the Church of England, it will be done grudgingly, with much of the joy of the celebration missing.

June Butler

Tobias, I believe that although people may not like it, it is necessary, especially for dioceses such as mine.

Necessary? That's a strong word and a strong claim. I don't know what your diocese is, Nicole, but why is it "necessary" to have DEPO? "Necessary" seems to me to imply there are not other options. It may be the best choice of options, but I can't think it is the only option, at least in any case I know of.

For instance, there's always to option to practice obedience, and accept a bishop with whom one disagrees. Both the people and bishop may learn something that way -- though the learning may be stressful. If that can't be avoided, there's always the option of disobedience, and the consequences that follow. There is a venerable tradition of conscientious objection in the church and society too.

Finally, there is always the possibility of resignation or abdicaton, if one truly cannot abide the tension of living in a situation in which one's conscience is afflicted.

Some may think DEPO is better than all of these alternatives, and at present they have that option -- and it is being used on both sides of the divide. But I still think it a bad idea.

"delegated episcopal pastoral oversight": "delegated" means it's with the diocesan bishop's permission, Nicole. A parish can ASK for it, but they can't INSIST upon it.

This amendment means that any parish in the CofE CAN insist upon it, by rule of canon law (and not only if the diocesan bishop is female, but also if they don't like their diocesan bishop's theology).

In short, it's congregationalism. It's totally unlike the CofE has been since catholic Christianity came to its shores 1600+ years ago.

I see the CofE as TEC's older sibling, so this is a family tragedy, IMO.

JC Fisher

Tobias, for some parishes it is necessary. For instance, the Diocese of LA, isn't completely monolithic in belief or practice. It would be farfetched to think that a parish could be ministered by someone they don't believe is fit to a minister in the first place. Don't you think that would cause a lot of trouble, and that more would have left if not for DEPO? This is why we have it.

Mr.Fisher, I know that. And I see no reason for a diocesan bishop to deny it if a parish truly believes that the they can't be lead by that particular shepherd. I haven't heard of a situation where a parish was denied it here. BTW, in a way, we already have a form of congregationalism. Our bishops don't assign new clergy to parishes as Roman Catholic bishops do, the parish calls the clergy, clergy they deem fit for the parish. And they can call or refuse to call on any bases, including gender. No one is prohibited from the discernment process, but nothing says that you will get ordained, and if even ordained, nothing says that you are guaranteed to get called. Oh by the way, did you get my e-mail?

Nicole, if I may simply for the record add that the diocesan bishop must approve the call any parish makes for a new clergy person. And if the congregation is a mission, clergy are ultimately appointed by the bishop.

I would argue that hardly qualifies as congregationalist. But good bishops exercise this power with great care and in clear conversation with the congregations involved.

I know they do Richard, and usually the bishops just rubber stamp in who the congregation wants, unless there is just call to say no, and there REALLY has to be a good reason, like something in the particular clergyman's background that was overlooked, not because that bishop would prefer them to have a different orientation or they want the parish to consider an LGBT candidate. And I'm speaking of parishes that are not missions.

Nicole, FWIW, I am less concerned about what you know than I am that readers of the thread were getting the full picture. Hence the phrase "for the record."

It is true parishes exercise great control over the search process, and in any dioceses, even missions do as well. But I do know of instances where bishops have refused to accept the calls of vestry when the search processes have shown egregious bias or ineptitude. The fact that authority is exercised with discretion does not make it a "rubber stamp," and while bishops may carefully choose their battles, their influence still moves us a healthy distance from thorough-going congregationalism.

In any case, it's still "backdoor congregationalism" no matter how you or anyone wants to paint it,Richard. No bishop, unless he wants a serious outcry on his or her hands, would interfere with who the parish feels that would best lead them, bias or not. In any case, don't we all have biases?? The gifts of the parishioners are what pays the rector,after all. Some clergy forget, they can be replaced. That includes bishops too, should they overstep their boundaries.

I disagree that this is "back door congregationalism." The clearest case against this argument are dioceses where bishops have barred women and LGBT people from not only ordination but from being called as clergy to serve in any congregation.

And I should add I'm all for clergy accountability, both locally and at the diocesan level. There are sad stories of rectors who refuse to budge, much to everyone's misery, and bishops likewise. My only stake in this conversation is that we do not have a congrationalist polity. The bishop is always involved at some level.

Ok, but no parish,not missions, but parishes in TEC, in any of our dioceses are forced to call a woman or an LGBT person as clergy. Is this not true?

No one is forced to call anyone -- what Richard was saying is that many churches have wanted a woman or gay priest and the bishop has denied them - Hard as that may for you to believe. Many churches call clergy on the basis of competency and spiritual depth not for their plumbing or for their wife or husband (of either sex).

And I understand that, and actually no, I don't find that hard to believe at all. I reside in the diocese of Los Angeles,Ann+. Nothing surprises me,lol.

Conflict avoidance is a strategy, not a necessity. As a strategy, it is less beneficial to all concerned than conflict resolution.

Obviously some congregations in TEC see themselves as more congregational than others, but in the end if a bishop wants to make things difficult for an unruly parish, there are a number of ways to do so. (Parishes can also make trouble for bishops!) That some choose benign neglect of each other is IMHO a sign of cynicism, and the placing of hope in the healing power of time itself, which eventually does away with all incumbents.

In our (TEC's) case, it has grown to be a necessity vs. a strategy. Like I said, if a bishop wants to make things difficult, they can be replaced. Sure, tons of red tape would be involved to pull this off, but in general, especially with the state of the church as it is, no one, not even those in miters, would want to make trouble. Question: Exactly what is an "unruly parish" in the first place?

Nicole, "unruly" means difficult to rule or unwilling to be ruled. As I said above, the whole notion of choosing teachers to one's own liking -- or as you suggest, "replacing" a bishop with whom a parish disagrees -- seems to me to describe an unwillingness to be ruled, and a willingness to fight to maintain independence over obedience. As I said, benign neglect is a strategy often employed toward such parishes these days. I just don't think that's good for the parish, in the long run, or for the bishop. YMMV.

How can one be ruled by one who they don't feel is fit to rule in the first place? And in the case of it not being good for the bishop, I believe that it is ultimately bad for a bishop who isn't wanted to begin with. How can one effectively minister in that environment?

I believe that it is ultimately bad for a bishop who isn't wanted to begin with.

Isn't wanted by whom? A bishop may have overwhelming majority support of his/her diocese, and still unwanted by a particular parish. That bishop MAY delegate an alternative bishop, but that's still not the same as letting that parish pick their OWN bishop.

FWIW, if *I* were bishop---let everyone "TBTG!" that I am not ;-) ---I would only supply DEPO with a clear sunset in the policy. No parish should get an indefinite time period to say to their bishop, "No, you won't do": that's how one institutionalizes a schism (IMO)

JC Fisher

Thank you for your email, Nicole.

The problem with DEPO for gender reasons seems to be twofold: first, you've got to start keeping rolls of bishops who were ordained priests and bishops by male bishops who were ordained by male bishops who were - well, you get the picture. It's like the lists that are kept in some ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities of who's "really Jewish" for purposes of marriages. Eventually, it seems to me that the prospects for those who won't accept the validity of women's ordination is untenable in a Church where it's practiced everywhere - you couldn't go to Communion in another Episcopal parish without checking out the ordination pedigree of the celebrant. It hardly sounds practical, or like a functioning Church.

It gets more complicated with the British, it seems. From what I'm able to gather, not only do those seeking DEPO (or whatever) have a problem with the validity of women's ordination, but also with the validity of ordination by anyone who has ever ordained women, or is in favor of women's ordination in even an abstract way. It seems to be a terribly advanced case of Donatism, and I don't see why the CofE is encouraging it.

I'm sorry, but giving a portion of the electorate the right essentially to dismiss the duly elected and consecrated leader, who in their private judgment is unworthy is not something I can support. In certain circumstances this would simply be called mutiny, in others, perhaps anarchy. I can see the use of the DEPO strategy as a temporary move, but as JCF says, if it doesn't sunset you've just created a conventicle or a schism. And I don't think that is healthy spiritually for anyone.

But I've said enough on this. A good night to all...

Well, there has been schisms going on since 1054. That's the only thing us Christians do best, split and create more reasons to split again. We're great at it, and most likely we'll continue until Christ comes back.