Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Church of England votes to allow women bishops

The Church of England's ruling General Synod has voted to consecrate women as bishops and approved a code of practice aimed at reassuring opponents.

Following women priests in 1994, this is quite logical.

Conservative MP and Synod member Robert Key, who supported the reforms, said afterwards it was time for the Church to move beyond 'navel-gazing'. He added: 'It is a good day for the Church of England, and it is a good day for the country because our national church, the church by law established, is actually now in step with most of the country and what people feel'.

What people feel?

Since when did the whirling charismatics formulate doctrine for the Anglican branch of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?

Presumably, Jesus feels the joy.


Anonymous britologywatch said...

What demonstrates to me that the decision taken was wrong was the reaction of some of the women, as quoted: saying that the Church had voted to end discrimination against them. This is totally misplaced and inappropriate language, and shows how they have failed to understand what is at issue. Who do they think was discriminating against them and why? And it's not supposed to be about untapping some job opportunity that has been previously denied them but, ultimately, about discerning the will of God.

Clearly, their own self-advancement is more important to them than Church unity - and this absence of a concern for unity demonstrates the absence of the Holy Spirit from their thinking. But, what with Catholics leaving over women bishops, and conservative evangelicals leaving over gay bishops, the liberal Church in which women now stand to become bishops could be a very depleted entity. Hardly building up the Church!

8 July 2008 at 08:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Call me a simpleton, but surely the point of a church is to move the people to be more in line with the revealled truth, not to move the truth/church to be more in line with the people.

If it is God's church then surely He decides the rules and we are beholden to them.

Also if there are no prophets in the CofE (and I must declare an interest: I am not CofE) and revelation has ceased, then from what authority is this knowledge received (man or the Devil?).

The Established church is now a joke (one that I'm not laughing at) and should be disestablished until such time as it learns the true doctrine and sticks to it, not changing it mind, 'being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine'.

Ray Griffin

8 July 2008 at 09:21  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

God is other people.

With Bigot Zeal

He say's

"I don't believe,

I feel."

John 2:15-17

8 July 2008 at 09:29  
Anonymous i spy strangers said...

Yes, Robert Key really blew the liberal agenda. I'm in favour of women bishops, but when my wife (who's a Reader in the C of E) and I heard this line about the church now being "in step with the country" on the radio, we both muttered "But that's not the Church's job!!".

I also feel that Synod should have shown much more concern for the "weaker brethren" by seeking to understand and accommodate their doubts more fully.

BTW, you might think the BBC's Religious Affairs correspondent would know that bishops are "consecrated", not "ordained". I must have heard this mistake about 10 times this morning. (Unless, of course, the proposal is to ordain women directly to a Bishopric, without the nausea of first being Deacon and Priest!)

8 July 2008 at 09:43  
Anonymous The Recusant said...

The reformation is dead, long live the reformation! And so the reformers are reformed. Well at least we no longer have to continue with the pretence of ARCIC, that is well and truly dead. It would be ironic if, as is the way of things, the lady Anglican Bishops turned out to be more conservative than those they supplant. Hopefully we will now get some honesty and historical perspective in the debate and get away from vicars calling themselves Priests and Father and drop terms like Anglo-Catholic and like minded muddled claims.

This clearly is the right move for the Anglicans, it was nonsense to admit women Vicars and not Bishops but it also confirms the wisdom of Pope Benedict in recognising these good Christians as an Ecclesiastical Community.

8 July 2008 at 10:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't want to drop terms like Anglo-Catholic, and I call my vicar Father. This is heart-rending. I recognise at base that anglo-catholicism is a fudge, but I have never wanted to turn to Rome.

I know you can logically say that Newman did, but others did not, and that has been good enough for me. The faith of Pusey, Darwell Stone, Freddie Hood, is where I have found myself accommodated intellectually. I am not prejudiced against women except doctrinally. Apostolic Succession matters to me- it might not fit in with the modern view of the world but, with a heavy heart, I believe it to be right.

There was no charity in last night's vote at Synod- in fact, if anything, there seems to have been a determined effort to drive us from the church. Many of my ordinand friends are seriously stunned by this- and the Church isn't exactly brimming with vocations as it is.

I am in my 20s, so am going to have to find a way through this becuase sooner or later the CofE is going to cease to reflect what I believe. I feel that I am being unchurched, there would be a howl of anguish if there was audio available on this blog.

I pray for reconciliation and grace within the communion, I'm not ready to go to Rome.

8 July 2008 at 10:54  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

anonymous [08 July 2008 10:54] ... you don't really need a church; all you need is a Bible and the time and inclination to read it.

By taking this Methodist approach, you might learn to properly treat the Old Testament with some suspicion, and to value the warnings contained in the New. True Christianity is very simple. It has much in common with Buddhism. Once you offload all this "Jews are the chosen ones" nonsense, you can get down to some real spirituality.

As for Women priests/vicars/bishops, it is quite clear this has been the end goal of secularists and femino-fascists for nigh on 30 years. You will find ample evidence for this if you go back and read some of the early Feminist theological books (esp. those published during the 1980s).

Women are not the guardians of the Spirit, and never shall be. They are the guardians of sex and sexuality. Every culture knows this fundamental truth. This is why they feature so prominently in Luciferian rites, and why they are not even allowed to touch Buddhist monks or to enter key parts of Shinto temples.

Only men can reach the levels of spirituality necessary for religious leadership. Indeed, religion was invented to counter the power of the vulva and clitoris over society. Women --- thru their sexuality --- have the power to poison a society or a whole culture ... thus religion was created as an antidote to that power.

Women have ingratiated themselves into our church because they have become utter failures in their primary roles and responsibilities: sexuality and motherhood. Much of the poison that has brought our culture low since the 1950s resides in the minds of our womenfolk. When we sort out and restore discipline to our women, is the day we begin to sort out our culture and return it to health and stability.

As the poison (the great Satan) which is the United States of America weakens further, and eventually dies, we will find it easier to get back to sanity.

8 July 2008 at 14:00  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

Tell me M.I. have you heard of Euro-Rus?

8 July 2008 at 14:32  
Blogger Malthebof said...

The Anglican church has set itself apart, and can now drift off into obscurity. It should be disestablished and allowed to fade away tended by all its women priests. It cannot claim to be part of the apostolic & catholic church.

8 July 2008 at 15:59  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

It was a logical progression from the decision to ordain women as vicars,your Grace.

And where will it end?

No doubt with the appointment some time soon of an Archbishop Rowena of Canterbury, and different parts of the Church going their own ways.

It would be interesting to know just how much the Anglican Church over the past, say 50 years has been influenced by the prevailing climate of inclusivity and feminism, orchestrated by successive governments, and brought to a black art form by this particular government. If so, and if this leads to schism, it would be singularly ironic that a Church formed as a result of government action, were to be destroyed by government action.

8 July 2008 at 16:07  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...


8 July 2008 at 16:49  
Anonymous Philipp Melancthon said...

An odious vote which sadly augurs ill for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, here's hoping that your Crown Appointments Commission isn't quite so daft as to follow that trendy talking-shop.

Contrary to the feigned pity of certain nameless vultures circling these parts, it simply would not do for us to abandon ship for supposedly 'greener' pastures elsewhere (which said 'refuges' tend, upon closer inspection to appear quite as beset by the typical malaise wrought by trendy NGO-types.) When/where folly seems ascendant, we ought rather hold our horses, avoid defeatism, conserve our forces and work strategically towards repeal.

8 July 2008 at 17:00  
Anonymous anna said...

What is the big deal? So many churches already have women pastors, and as long as we are clear that bishops are also meant, like pastors, to be servants, not rulers, why the big hue and cry over women getting to serve in another capacity?

8 July 2008 at 18:19  
Blogger Guthrum said...

Its another yet schism, there will be others- the Church of England is a human organisation and has human failings of pride and monstrous egos

8 July 2008 at 19:55  
Anonymous Derek Smith said...

This card-carrying charismatic (who doesn't 'whirl') is a little disappointed in his Grace for the unkind slur at the end.

He should be more concerned about the Conservative MP who clearly is prophesying under the influence of the spirit of the age.

Who does his Grace support politically, again?

9 July 2008 at 06:39  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Hello Anna [08 July 2008 18:19] ... if it isn't a big deal, then why have various shadowy women's groups and Marxist pressure groups been plotting the insertion of women into the Christian hierarchy for the past 25 years?

If it isn't a big deal then why the messianic obsession with consecrating women bishops? Why do you refuse to take no for an answer?

Presumably, people like you believe women vicars and bishops would bring 'something' to the Anglican church that it currently lacks ... what is that? Feverishly dancing 'round a May-Pole whilst chewing mushrooms?

What church, other than the Church of Satan, has demonstrated the worth and value of women filling high positions in its clergy? In search of an example, you may go back a full 1700 years if you need to, and take from any geographical abode.

Are we, yet again, bowing to fashionable, pseudo, social-scientific theories that have simply been inserted into our nation from the JU-S-A? Just because a minority church in the JU-S-A does it, the remainder of the Anglo-Saxon world must follow suit? Really? Who is orchestrating the symphony?

Are the 'leaders' of the Anglican Church being pushed to accept women's ordination by some external influence? It would certainly seem so. Who or what might this influence be? Choose one option out of the following:

1) The Boys Scout Movement;
2) The Federal Reserve;
3) Mickey Mouse Fan Club;
4) Well funded Jewish (Zionist) organizations under the umbrella leadership of the Jew dominated ACLU;
5) North Florida Golfing Association;
6) Mad-as-a-Hatter George Bush and his band of Neocons;
7) Tony Bliar's World Wide Fund for the Advancement of Bland Cultural Uniformity under the Church of Mammon.

No cheating now. There is only one correct answer!

9 July 2008 at 13:03  
Anonymous Daniel mclean said...

Recusant - 'Vicars' should stop calling themselves 'priests'?!

Are you really as stupid as you sound? Since when have the three-fold orders included the term 'Vicar'?

Anglican Priests are Priests, ask your own, or look in the BCP perhaps.

9 July 2008 at 15:56  
Anonymous G Eagle Esq said...

His Grace the Archbishop Cranmer

Your Grace

Isn't a Major Problem in the C of E that those in Office faces NO realistic accountability for his (or her, in these enLightened times) actions

A local Diocesan Board of Finance :

1. bullies a Parish into paying an excessive Diocesan Quota

2. even when told that this would be driving the PCC towards insolvency


3. the DBF demands that the Parish dismisses Parish Staff (paid for by Parishioners), when the Diocese refuses to consider reducing its own excessive Head-Count

However, the bullying Diocesan Officials faced no risk of losing their High Church Offices, as a result of their unpleasant & offensive actions

Surely ACCOUNTABILITY is what is LACKING in the debates about Women Priests and Women Bishops is the absence that those demanding these innovations

Why does the C of E not make it clear that, a woman (or a man) "vicar" will be dismissed if she (or he) is appointed to a Parish, but she (or he) fails because the Parish becomes non-viable

Similarly, who heard of a Bishop or Cathedral Dean (male or female) losing his Office, because of his (or her) failures

I have the honour to remain your Grace's obedient servant and
Yours ever

G Eagle

9 July 2008 at 18:42  
Anonymous billy said...

There are plenty of female prophets in the Old Testament and not a few references to women serving alongside the disciples in the New.

It might be an injection of spirituality into the CofE. Maggie did the Conservative Party no harm at all.

I'm in favour.

10 July 2008 at 00:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So that bastion of liberal woolly-minded theological and political correctness wishes to ordain women bishops. So what schism begets schism! Let it march into obscurity and good riddance. While it is tearing its self apart, and interfering in the legislative process in the House of Lords, let there be a serious call for it to be disestablished, and remove its influence from Westminster.

As for the ‘catholic wing’ seeking solace in Rome, what on earth makes them think we want them? Roman Catholicism, with all her faults, comes with a huge amount of teaching, we may not like some of it, but we all know where we stand. It is not a pick and mix church or a democracy.

10 July 2008 at 08:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I haven't worked out the rights and wrongs of women bishops yet, but i find it all reassuring that the church of england are prepared to actively include women preaching and teaching in their churches; many other churches walk the walk on this issue but aren't talking the talk. Maybe the church of engand are a bit more up to date than those of us in the apparently 'free' churches would like to think. ...and no i'm not a feminist. i just think we pigeon hole God's will far too easily and far too much, and confuse it with our own interpretations and perceptions. Trace

12 July 2008 at 12:00  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older