We, lay members of the Church of England, call upon the House of Bishops wholeheartedly to support legislation for women bishops that is free from discrimination.
We are confident that acceptable non-statutory arrangements can be made for those who remain opposed to women’s ordained ministries.
We urge the bishops at General Synod strongly to support having women as bishops without further delay.
You can sign the petition (and in my opinion put right a massive injustice)here.
The Shiny Headed Prophet 
Hi Rob. You and your readers might like to look at my article ‘Less like a Church’: the impact of the Manchester Report ‘Single Clause’ option on the future of the Church of England to see why picturing what the petition you’ve linked to as ‘putting right a massive injustice’ is quite mistaken.
thanks John for your comment.I don’t see anything in your post, however, that causes me to change my mind.I see nothing you say that justifies discrimination of this order which I believe is not a thing of God; and so I stick by my original post.
Rob, we must agree to differ on the conclusions we reach about the leadership of the Church. However, the Church of England made commitments to those who hold to the traditional view of leadership, and the Anglican Communion recognizes this as a valid viewpoint, based on Scripture and tradition.The Manchester Report, to which this petition refers, recognizes that the ‘Single Clause’ option to which it refers will renege on those commitments, narrow the breadth of the Anglican church, and probably lead to the exclusion from its fellowship of a substantial number of its members. That is why I don’t think signing it represents an act against ‘injustice’.On the issue of leadership, the relationship of men and women in the base-community of marriage and the home, where the husband is ‘head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church’ has, I am personally convinced, consequences for the wider Church community. That is why I hold the views I do, and though I recognize others do not hold those views, I think it will be a troubling day when they join with overt theological Liberals (something I cannot imagine you are, working for Youth for Christ) to exclude those of my own persuasion, when there is so much else on the Liberal agenda already bearing in on the Church of England.It’s not like we don’t have enough liberalism already. People without an Anglican background need to look at the statements of those promoting this petition – like the ones on the WATCH website about our understanding of God.
JohnI think a far more troubling day for me is when a person who wishes to see injustice and discrimination removed from the church is labelled a ‘liberal’, and labelled such as if that label should be a negative term.I believe you only have a bi-view of the situation in your outline of scripture and tradition, whereas, in fact, we need a tri-view of scripture, tradition and experience – that, in my opinion, captures something of the essence of scripture being the living word of God that constantly needs to be re-interpreted for a new age.If their is any tradition, as such, withing the Anglican Communion then experience shows that it is a tradition of re-interpretation and change.
Rob, I really don’t know how much you know about the Church of England, so I must be careful how this comes across. However, though you may already know this, Anglicanism historically has never regarded anything as being above Scripture as an authority in the Church. Neither tradition nor experience has any priority over, nor even equality with, Scripture.So when Scripture speaks as it does in ways that at least seem to make having women as congregational leaders and bishops problematic, we ought to take that seriously. That is in our Thirty-nine Articles, but it is also the historic basis of the Reformation.When, though, you write that you think it is troubling “when a person who wishes to see injustice and discrimination removed from the church is labelled a ‘liberal'”, you are begging several questions. Indeed, representing this as an issue of justice versus injustice is over-simplifying, as the Archbishop of Canterbury (who founded the Liberal group Affirming Catholicism, but is a wise Liberal in many regards) has openly acknowledged.Looking at it from the other perspective, indeed, injustice can be perceived in what is being done to traditionalists. What do we call it when, knowing that in 1993 assurances given traditionalists of both the Evangelical and Catholic variety were described as “permanent” and there “in perpetuity”, we find the House of Bishops sweeping them aside a mere fifteen years later?Speaking from well within Anglicanism, I can tell you that if the House of Bishops go ahead with their proposal, and if the General Synod adopts the ‘Single Clause’ option, it will cause nothing but heartache for the Church, not least because this is emphatically not being urged on the basis of a better understanding of Scripture. But I’ve probably said enough already.
JohnI think it is clear to say we are never going to agree.You will say its unjust as you are being discriminated against.I will say its unjust as women are being discriminated against.You can use the Bible to support your view and I can use the Bible to support mine. Scripture is not 100% clear either way.The Bishops will make their decision and whatever it will be surely we can agree and have to acknowledge they are God’s appointed leaders of our church, if we believe that we then have to go with their decision … but if we don’t then should we not have gone already?
Rob, I agree we have to disagree. I always think the “The Bishops are our leaders and we should go along with them” argument, though, runs against the rocks of both the Bible and Church (including Anglican Church) history. Look at what was said by Luther about the Bishop of Rome and his bishops during the Reformation, but look also at what Newman said about bishops and the leadership of the Church during the Arminian disputes.Ultimately, I believe the existing House of Bishops have made a grave error already. This no more requires me to leave the Church of England (or to go along with whatever they say) than my low opinion of Gordon Brown requires me to leave the country.