Friday, 24 February 2017

Very Very Very Dark Blue?

The Guardian, in an article about the appointment of Philip North to Bishop of Sheffield, reports a very odd comment from Colin Podmore, of the Society of Ss Wilf and Hilda:
“You could tell by looking who was a priest whose ministry we could receive, and who was not."
Which gives me a very disturbing image of a row of priests, naked except for their dog collars, as their - ahem - credentials are checked.

Though I suppose they could have just been checking the colour of their socks.


  1. As a female, albeit, Methodist Clergy woman serving in Sheffield I hear the disease of my Anglican colleagues, and am reflecting on the Guardian Article which really does make the church sound barmy, and with good reason. How stupid is an argument that says I can't or won't recieve your ministry... I seriously don't know whether to laugh, cry or throw my hands up in horror!

  2. A female clergy woman, what next? I will now be on the lookout for male clergy women!

  3. Wondering how he can fulfil his role as Bishop if his "theological position would make it impossible for him to affirm female clergy in his diocese, or male clergy who have been ordained by a female bishop." Maybe there could be 'Flying Bishops' to minister to those whose ontological purity doesn't meet North's projections? Should I suggest that to Synod?

  4. There's one thing I envy Anglicans (and other Protestants for). At least you have an appointments system that is unmistakeably human-driven (and in the case of the Anglicans, politically driven). You are not likely to end up with the top posts going to people who are deluded into thinking that they have been personally appointed by the Holy Spirit and their thoughts and wishes therefore trump Jesus's teachings. Which can therefore be ignored or rewritten according to contemporary desires.

  5. Let's just hope no bishops whose socks have been verified later transitions to the unmentionable sock category.


Drop a thoughtful pebble in the comments bowl