The Manchester Report is out. And it appears that reason has prevailed, that “a church within a church” in the form of extrageographical dioceses will be provided for those who cannot recognize the ordination of women as sacramentally valid.
Of course, this provision begs the question: if a form of “boundary crossing” is o.k. for the Church of England, then why isn’t it o.k. for the Anglican Communion?
Ruth Gledhill has posted a good report. Interesting commentary may be found there as well as here and here. I especially appreciate this comment: “Ladies - just take a good, long look at male bishops.
Now, honestly, do you still want to be bishops too?
Come on, you're much too intelligent for that.”
Forward in Faith is tentatively pleased with the report:
We are pleased to note that the report appears to have addressed most, if not all, of the issues which we raised with the Group and that it seems, among the several possible ways forward described, to include proposals which those unable to receive the ordination of women as bishops could in good conscience embrace.
But scorched-earth liberals such as Christina Rees of Women and the Church are not pleased. They want women bishops now and “with no legal arrangements for those who remain opposed to having women as bishops and priests.” Submit or leave is their policy towards traditionalists. How inclusive.
Fortunately – and unlike the Episcopal Church – such do not yet run the show in the Church of England.