Comments: Bishop John Broadhurst writes about women bishops

Interesting comments. Broadhurst seems to be saying that FiF parishes should not just have the right to oversight by a male bishop, but that they should be entitled to pick which male bishops are acceptable to them. It would be a pretty radical shake up to the church if all parishes were given this right.

Posted by The Church Mouse at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 7:37pm BST

The "intransigence of some feminist clergy and their supporters" opposing a system of an all-male clergy is "sexism writ large." Well, there you have it ...

Posted by dr.primrose at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 7:50pm BST

Wow does this statement from Bishop JB speak volumes about the extent, depth, width of the males only-males first dilemma. The bishop urges prayer and support; but properly only for those whose theology and conscience agree with his, pretty much strictly.

The logical vexation is, the bishop wants his cake, and wants to eat it, too. That is, he will draw upon every big tent Anglican resource or strategy to establish/continue his strict-exclusive prerogative to operate a carefully smalled down tent inside whatever else is called Anglican, essentially or nominally; and he reserves a clear, strong privilege for dissing everybody who is not just like him, or allied strategically with his small tent-narrow tent aims.

He presumes it is all about a no-women godliness; but the size of what he wants is all out of keeping with his way of wanting no go women zones. It is just this sort of profound hostility to women that by sheer definition cannot be held accountable outside its own closed beliefs and behaviors; a hostility not even argued and asserted but simply presumed, categorically. This sort of thing helps make the big tent accommodations into a game of double-bind and nothing but. Accommodate date me and my hostility to women wins; don't accomodate me, and I will still preach you others' essential definitional ungodliness. Meanwhile, let me draw hugely on methods which owe their historical character to big tent Anglican generosity.

Hang onto all that, and tensions, gaps, polarizations will have to get much, much, much worse before any final synod votes. A fine bit of spin doctoring, in passing: Not being males only-males first is now preached by the bishop as essentially and categorically sexist. One of the better bits of presuppositional sleight of hand tricks I've read about lately? And, how nicely believers who discern and appreciate women's calls and gifts are dimissed in the bishops godly realms with the deeply scornful tag word, feminist.

Surely God created this bishop, and then much later afterwards, created all women to submit to him, provided she asks permission first? Back to Rod Ts piece for a quick second, this is hardly the sort of bishop I can common sensically read as that idealized 'self-giving' and 'sacrificial' model of God's heart. It's women who are all tied on his chopping blocks, waiting to be sacrificed.

Posted by drdanfee at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 9:02pm BST

RE: "the respect of theological principle"
I cannot help but wonder which theological principles should be respected. That Holy Scripture teaches male authority over women is arguable, but only if one believes that Lot's offer of his daughters (Gen 19:8) was righteous behavior. The story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42) better represents the Christian view of gender equality. Given the social norms of his time, Jesus was radically supportive of a women's role in ministry. If a person believes that context is essential to theology, then Jesus definitely was a feminist.

Posted by Mike at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 9:28pm BST

I imagine this guy doesn't see so much obligation to follow the archbishops' leadership when it doesn't agree with his own views. He seems to want it both ways: "Catholics" obey their archbishops, but "Catholics" don't have to follow a bishop they disagree with.

Posted by Zach at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 9:44pm BST

Dr. Primrose, it is, as it always seems to be, a matter of whose ox is getting gored.

(Of course, if these folks were listening more fully to Gore, perhaps we would not be here.)

Posted by Marshall Scott at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 9:45pm BST

Arrogance writ large as well, Dr Primrose.

Posted by Lapinbizarre at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:08pm BST

Choose your bishop is not a very catholic doctrine!! There are a number whose beliefs do not coincide with mine. No synod can be bound by the decisions of previous ones - life would grind to a halt if that view prevailed. We'd still believe in a flat earth and creation 6,000 years ago by that token, not to mention slavery and the Pope. There has to be a mechanism for removing disastrous decisions and mistakes and the the Act of Synod was a mistake.

Posted by Ian Black at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:10pm BST

Resolutions A and B do not provide a basis in law for opposing the ordination of women. They provide a basis in law for -- in certain circumstances -- being able to insist on the ministry of a man. Not the same thing at all.

And I'm sure that very many people will want see the return to the Synod of many orthodox and catholic candidates but the bishop should not be allowed to get away with using either of those terms as synonyms for people opposed to the ordination of women!

Posted by Simon Kershaw at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:15pm BST

Dearie me - sexism writ large - and if others were to demand access to a female bishop of any beliefs whatever, what pray would that be???

The good bishop is making an utterly illogical point.

Posted by Rosemary Hannah at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:16pm BST

There are crudities here, but this is a man who (a)quite clearly wants to remain within the C of E; (b) is disappointed and angry. Over and all, I admire him.

Posted by john at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:30pm BST

Zach has the truth of it.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:43pm BST

Of course the ordinariate is not an option for Bishop Broadhurst as he is a convert from Cathholicism to Anglicanism.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:56pm BST

"Every blessing,
XJohn Fulham"

Well, I feel blessed!

Then again, I am in a church where the ministry of women is welcomed at all levels.

Posted by Nom de Plume at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 11:35pm BST


a good pun!

Posted by John Sandeman at Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 11:35pm BST

"The story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42) better represents the Christian view of gender equality."

I suspect the good bishop would read this quite quite differently.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 12:51am BST

The present PEV's (Beverley an honorable exception) have only themselves to blame. Instead of ministering to those of us who wish to stay in the Church of England as faithful catholics they have been going about inciting corporate defection to Rome. They have been in dereliction of the duty with which they were charged by the Act of Synod and should have been replaced long ago by those who are loyal Anglicans.

Posted by Antiphoner at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 1:23am BST

Illogical? No, he's arguing that it's not just men who are sexist about women... not that I agree with him on that.

Reminds me of an old story in which a straight female writer was astonished at the number of gay literature anthologies in a local bookshop where I'm from. Her gay writer-friend said, "Now you know how it feels to be marginalized."

Posted by Ren Aguila at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 2:11am BST

Interesting to compare this bishop's take with this morning's Irish Times:

Posted by Spirit of Vatican II at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 3:20am BST

As an Episcopalian in the USA, I'm glad that England had the great leadership of Queen Elizabeth to go with the very fine British Navy. Otherwise, those of us here in the USA would be speaking French, Spanish, Italian or German, not English. Women also make great leaders in our church. I am proud to have them. Look at what the exclusive male dominated hierachy our Roman Catholic friends have that has brought on all the travesties of sexual scandal.

Posted by sam cole at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 4:30am BST

". . sexism writ large."

See, the original statement was:

Big Bish @ Minifif sez Minicofe womanwords doubleplusungood.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 5:24am BST

Bishop Boradhurst now finds himself in a real pickle. Having transferred from allegiance to the See of Peter. all he can now do, with any integrity, is co cap-in-hand to his former Roman Catholic Church to beg re-admission - on the gounds that the current situation in the Anglican Church does not suit him, and he would like to return to the safety of his former Church, so that he does not have to submit to the idea of women in sacerdotal ministry.

Where can Bishop Broadhurst go from here? Perhaps, in order to cling to what degree of sanity he has left to him, in the circumstances, is that he needs to re-submit himself to the magisterial authority of his former Roman Catholic Primacy - of the See of Peter, from which he had to defect in order to become an Anglican and subsequently a PEV of the 'Two Integrities' model of the Church of England.

The fact that Rome has never recognized his Anlgican Orders in any event surely should not prejudice his re-entry in the Roman Church?

What this clerical gentleman needs to realise, is that the former double jeopardy of two types of episcopal oversight in the C.of E. is not likely to survive at the next General Synod's meeting.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 12:24pm BST

Bishop Broadhurst can not be r-ordained , but he could come back as a layman.

Sam raises a valid point..the jurisdiction of Church of England is given by the crown, and that is at present our lovely LADY Queen Elizabeth the second.

Why was that not mentioned at the Synod...the orders come from the clergy, but jurisdiction is given by the Queen, who is the ordinary of Canterbury and York.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 4:53pm BST

Interesting comments. Broadhurst seems to be saying that FiF parishes should not just have the right to oversight by a male bishop, but that they should be entitled to pick which male bishops are acceptable to them. It would be a pretty radical shake up to the church if all parishes were given this right. But, Mouse, isn't that the deal that FiF had for themselves in London? Certainly that's what +JB once told me the deal was.

Posted by Andrew Brown at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 5:21pm BST

Rev. Ron: I think you're confusing Bp. John Broadhurst with Abp. John Hepworth of the TAC. So far as I know John Broadhurst was never a Roman Catholic, having studied for the priesthood at Kings College London and St. Boniface, Warminster.

Not that facts should be allowed to overly cramp your delightfully catty style :)

I look forward to welcoming as many as possible of my former co-religionists to the proper side of the Tiber, and we shall be very blessed indeed if Bp. Broadhurst is among them.

Posted by Clive at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 7:02pm BST

Err... +JB (my bishop when I was a London curate)was born and brought up RC. He met his wife and decided her Anglican religion was a better bet and Kings and Warminster followed his conversion. Sorry Clive, it was justifable cattiness!

Posted by fr dougal at Friday, 16 July 2010 at 11:11pm BST

I stand corrected :) I guess that means he won't need confirmation then. I'm sure the details have already been worked out - it's not as if +JB and the Holy Father are unacquainted. I suspect Rome will be flexible where eminent persons are concerned. Cf Mgr. Graham Leonard.

Posted by Clive at Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 12:30am BST

Spirit of Vatican two..thanks for the link to the Irish Times..

That paper has always been was once the paper of the Dublin Castle British establishment in Ireland..and now is the liberal champion. however the article was good about the Anglo-Catholic bluff. However the Church of Ireland passed legislation to allow women when it voted for women priests.

Reform are active in Northern Ireland and there is a growing conservative evangelical movement in the Protestant north.

Posted by Robert Ian Williams at Saturday, 17 July 2010 at 7:02am 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.