Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to be sad that we are not going to get women bishops?

(147 Posts)
grovel Tue 20-Nov-12 18:20:16

Bugger

ErrorError Thu 22-Nov-12 19:20:34

I'm not religious but also fuming at this decision and feel really sorry for the people who have campaigned in favour of this. Back to the middle ages we go? What is hilariously ironic is that the Head of the C of E is in fact, a woman!

Bunpea Thu 22-Nov-12 18:04:33

Yes yabu, you should be absolutely livid, not just sad.

and I believe that the Holy Spirit yearns for it.

That's quite an interesting point, as the Holy spirit, called the Shekinah, is female in Jewish and Qabbalastic system.

ClippedPhoenix Thu 22-Nov-12 00:21:43

One more thing. Everytime I pass a church I laugh when there's a sign out there saying "help us fix our roof" In my head I say "fix your own damn roof"

and breath phoenix breath

ClippedPhoenix Thu 22-Nov-12 00:16:07

whilst im on a roll here the "church" is a very rich establishment that owns so much property in England it's laughable yet it/they profess to help the poor? come on now, how damn hypocritcal is that?

ClippedPhoenix Thu 22-Nov-12 00:00:04

When are you going to realise poor that it's an "Establishment" run by men for men totally dressed up in finery and pomp. Everything about religion stinks of inequality for women.

ClippedPhoenix Wed 21-Nov-12 23:54:11

I'd even go so far as thinking that letter is a crock of shite.

HouseOfBamboo Wed 21-Nov-12 22:40:35

I'd say that the bishops had a firmer grip on the PR implications than a dedication to sexual equality, but maybe that's just me being cynical.

poorchurchmouse Wed 21-Nov-12 22:26:24

Except that on this occasion the gentlemen already in the club - the bishops - voted overwhelmingly to let women in. It's a bit more complicated than you're suggesting.

ClippedPhoenix Wed 21-Nov-12 20:20:59

That and a lot more besides sad

Religion is based on control always has been always will be and guess what, women should still know their place. We are allowed to go so far to shut us up don't you know.

It's the worst form of a "gentlemans club" I've ever come across.

HouseOfBamboo Wed 21-Nov-12 20:11:59

oh thank you blush

But it's an effective strategy by the church, in some areas, anyway - grab the middle classes by the balls by holding their kids' education to ransom.

ClippedPhoenix Wed 21-Nov-12 19:55:53

Another great post House. What power huh.

HouseOfBamboo Wed 21-Nov-12 19:53:21

Those who believe the bible stories are mighty powerful though. They keep us in line by letting us know exactly which taxpayer-funded schools our children are entitled to attend in our local area. I suppose we should count ourselves lucky they let women be teachers.

ClippedPhoenix Wed 21-Nov-12 19:32:25

but I can't understand why thinking, sane adults can't see the word "bullshit" in twenty foot high flaming letters whenever confronted by religion

I am 120% with you here.

The bible is a "book of stories" You only have to look at what tribesmen still do in some parts today, they tell stories.

GrimmaTheNome Wed 21-Nov-12 19:19:36

BB - if that was the motivation (I've no idea) that would be all the more shameful. Responsible organisations don't make decisions out of pique.

BridgetBidet Wed 21-Nov-12 18:28:05

I suspect that rather than it being a vote against women bishops it was an expression of anger by many of the laity at Rowan Williams and his leadership of the church and a final outgoing 'bloody nose' personally aimed at him rather than anything specific to do with women bishops.

I reckon if the next chap is a more popular Archbishop he will have no problem getting it through. It's Rowan Williams unpopularity which has caused this.

'Can someone please explain to me the difference between obeying some bits and not others as compared to just using your brain to decide on a set of rules and behaviors that make the world a better place?'

Why should there be a difference? confused

Arseface Wed 21-Nov-12 18:02:23

YABU to be just 'sad'. I'm seething.
Couldn't care less what churches want to do amongst themselves but they should not be exempt from the law of the land.

Maybe now we can finally get the Cof E out of our schools and legislative bodies though.

Have not read thread so sorry if I'm repeat linking but petition Here seems like a good start.

Oldmanriver Wed 21-Nov-12 17:48:09

So the bible, unreliable. Leviticus, some sensible bits, some lunacy. Infection control good, stoning for wearing mixed fibers bad. So you find the bits in it that support your view points, whilst jumping through mental hoops to reconcile the god of love with HIV infected babies.

Can someone please explain to me the difference between obeying some bits and not others as compared to just using your brain to decide on a set of rules and behaviors that make the world a better place? I'm not attacking anyone personally but I can't understand why thinking, sane adults can't see the word "bullshit" in twenty foot high flaming letters whenever confronted by religion.

I think it would be great for the CofE to reissue the Bible with just the bits they agree with, and maybe add a bit about gender equality and an up vote for the gays or something. Possibly drop the god bit and get on the communal singing, community building and charity work that actually does some good.

I'll shut up now, I feel bad for contributing to derailment of this thread away from the original point.

nickelrocketgoBooooooom Wed 21-Nov-12 17:32:32

Just received this email:

The Diocese of Canterbury
The Right Reverend Trevor Willmott
The Old Palace, The Precincts, Canterbury, Kent CT1 1NQ
Telephone: +44 (0)1227 459382. Fax: 784985
Email: trevor.willmott@bishcant.org
www.canterburydiocese.org

Dear Colleagues
The open door…
You will no doubt have heard that the General Synod of the Church of England voted yesterday against the Measure to allow women to be ordained as bishops. Although the Measure was passed in the House of Bishops (44 for, 3 against, 2 abstentions) and the House of Clergy (148 for and 45 against), the vote in the House of Laity (132 for and 74 against) narrowly missed the required 2/3 majority required in each House. In essence, another 6 votes in the House of Laity and the headlines this morning would have been very different.
Many of my fellow bishops have already expressed their deep disappointment at this decision, and many more people across the church and beyond are saddened and confused at the rejection of what seemed to so many to be a reasonable, if imperfect, way forward. Many are doubting their vocation, and even their faith, within a church whose decision making body could now appear so out of touch with both the majority of its members and the wider society it seeks to serve. My heart goes out to all those who are saddened by yesterday’s events and particularly those women whose ministry is such an important, a fundamental part of the life of the church, and who had hoped so dearly to be affirmed in their vocation.
One of the readings set for Holy Communion today, from the Revelation to John, begins…
‘I looked, and there in heaven a door stood open!’
I believe that the door to women being bishops is open and cannot now be shut. The clear majority of the Church of England demands it, the people of this country expect it, and I believe that the Holy Spirit yearns for it. There will be women bishops in the Church of England and I hope and pray that the wait will not be a long one.
The vote yesterday was not a ‘no’ to women bishops, but it was a ‘no’ to the proposed Measure as it stands. The House of Bishops meets in two weeks’ time and will be considering the way forward; I ask for your prayers for me and my colleagues in this work.
In the Diocese of Canterbury, women in ministry are valued and appreciated widely. As Bishop, I have consistently assured those who find the episcopal or priestly ministry of women difficult, that there will be a place for them, which respects their convictions.
My door is open to those who wish to talk to me about this. My thoughts and prayers are with all those across the Diocese who feel the effects of this decision deeply. And I would echo Archbishop Rowan’s words: ‘It is still your church. Not mine, not Synod’s, but yours. Your voice matters and will be heard. It’s important not to give up.’
The door is open. We will, and we must, go through it together.
With my prayers and best wishes,
Bishop Trevor
This email has been sent to clergy, Readers, churchwardens, parish officers, Authorised Lay Ministers and head teachers in the Diocese of Canterbury. Please share with your colleagues not on email.

roger - I've heard that sort of thing with the rules about pork, or shellfish - it's not healthy to keep pigs in hot climates, and shellfish goes off fast.

I agree, lots of it must be quite practical. And lots of it is just beautiful writing. It's just such a huge patchwork of different things.

grimma - yeah, I can imagine! grin

Ring social services.

I've got to say, I find possession/demons one of the hardest things to imagine people believing, ever, though I know they did (and people still do).

GrimmaTheNome Wed 21-Nov-12 16:03:05

Yes... whenever you get a 'WWJD' the answer you get is usually 'what would I do if I had the same clout'. Man ( in the genderless sense) makes god in his own image and - despite being a probably real historical person, tries to do the same for Jesus. Here's a thought experiment...suppose you have a christian who's somehow skipped Matthew 8.28-36, Mark 5.1-20 and Luke 8.20-34. Paint a scenario where your walking along in the countryside and meet a naked man who lives in tombs who says he's posessed by demons. WWJD? I'd stake large odds that no-one who hadn't read the story would come remotely close to what is supposed to have happened. It doesn't in any way fit with our 21st century sensibilities.

rogersmellyonthetelly Wed 21-Nov-12 16:02:12

I think the bible is surprisingly enlightened in some areas of the old testament, take Leviticus for example, the rules regarding skin disease or rashes show an enlightened view of how to prevent spread of contagion etc. also the Jewish rules regarding not mixing dairy and meat show some clear knowledge of the danger of bacterial contamination.
It is however I think unrealistic to expect that after countless translations and transcriptions that Gods perfect word remain as He intended it. After all, however hard we try, we are human and therefore imperfect, each with our own experiences and opinions, which this thread amply demonstrates, if God appeared to each of us with the same message tonight, how many different versions of that message would we see tomorrow? And how different again would those messages be after several thousand years of passing down by word of mouth, then written, then translation into languages which were not even in use when the original message was given, and may not even have the vocabulary to express fully the message? This is why I am unable to accept the old testament as Gods literal word. The imprint of mans imperfect hand rests too heavily on it for me to judge or condemn anyone based on its contents. It is a moral compass, and a guide, but my direction comes from prayer, faith and the new testament.

I mean, it's not so much God was dictating to the gospel writers and they were fiddling with their hair while he was talking so they wrote a bit down wrongly, or one of them thought 'nahhh, that sounds daft, I'll put something else in the copy and no-one will notice'. It's that you can't really communicate something in human language, that is going to be the sum of human knowledge forever. Human brains don't work that way.

I think that's pretty much it - or rather, there are things in this world we don't understand properly. Loads of them. And as knowledge expands, we don't actually stop finding there are other things we don't understand. So it is silly to expect that anything written down is going to explain everything so we can understand it, once and for all.

If you're not comfortable with the theological bit, maybe see it as a way people have of rationalizing the fact that we aren't ever going to know everything or understand everything?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now