Comments: Anglican Mainstream statement on yesterday's vote

I commented on the "problem of monoepiscopacy" business under your last Anglican Mainstream post. Seems the evangelical ultras and maybe the Jensenites (is there a difference?), have a new toy.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 9:39pm BST

I don't recall monoepiscopacy ever being a problem in the history of Christendom until it was important to deny women authority. However, perhaps this is a new ecumenical moment to acknowledge multiple bishops within a single diocese?

Posted by Rebecca at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 10:37pm BST


Well, it seems to have been a pretty live issue a couple of thousand years ago, but after that everyone settled down with it.

And it presumably would have stayed settled until Anglican Mainstream, and others of that ilk, seized upon it as a means of rejecting women priests in general, and women bishops in particular.

Naturally these deeply traditionalist members of the church are perfectly happy to overturn the tradition of a couple of millennia...

Posted by chenier1 at Sunday, 11 July 2010 at 11:33pm BST

"So far we have yet to find a solution. Further meetings to address this will take place".

Philip Giddings
Chris Sugden

Meanwhile, the world waits upon Philip and Chris's symposium to determine what the oxymoronically named 'Mainstream' people might come up with. It must be controversial, otherwise they wouldn't be bothered.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 12 July 2010 at 1:59am BST

Having read Dr. Sugden's article at Anglican Mainstream on "mono-episcopacy," I'm struck at what appears to be an entirely too convenient mis-remembering of our history. Yes, there have been times in the pre- and Roman Imperial church when there was more than one bishop served in a territory - but one of those bishops was clearly outside the catholic orthodox tradition. Sure, there were Athanasian and Arian bishops at the same time, and Catholic and Nestorian bishops at the same time; but they were hardly "flourishing" in the same church.

Of course, that's really the undercurrent in most of the writings of those who oppose ordination of women because the writer considers himself "orthodox:" that being orthodox, the writer considers the other person heterodox at best, and heretical at worst. If that's what Sugden and evangelical colleagues, and also some of the Anglo-Catholics think, they why would they stay with the Church of England (and some of them say they won't); and also, why would the Church of England remain interested in them?

Posted by Marshall Scott at Monday, 12 July 2010 at 3:39am BST

"The debate in synod is not about gender equality."


Posted by JCF at Monday, 12 July 2010 at 3:43am BST

Messrs Giddings and Sugden

It is not possible both to have and not to have women in the episcopate.

One thing or the other.

However, what about this :-

'... the liberty to hold within the Church of England two views about leadership in the church which are compatible with scripture and tradition. '

'Most have accepted' that minsiters includng bishops, can be, and are and will be gay.

Get over it -- all of it.

Posted by Pantycelyn at Monday, 12 July 2010 at 7:00pm BST

"Mono-episcopacy" - surely we don't have that in the c of E even now. Service Chaplains for instance are licenced to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops to the forces have ministry over the whole country.

I discovered some years ago that my diocesan didn't know that. Perhaps the rest of General Synod need a little legal education in the matter.

In any case "Holy Order" isn't about power or status but about pernission to ministry, a point missed by the critics.

Posted by E. Baty at Wednesday, 14 July 2010 at 12:40pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.