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

[grovel]

Bugger

[Cluffyfunt]

How the absolute fuck do we have aFemalehead of the CoE but females are no

[Cluffyfunt]

T alowed to be bishops?

Sorry, posted too soon.

[sashh]

I don't want to be methodist, I want my Church to sort its act out.

You don't have to go permenantly. I know a couple of practicing RC who have married in Methodist churches (divorced and 2nd marriage). Methodist ministers seem to think it's better to be married in a church, even if it is not the one you normally attend.

[Oldmanriver]

Err I think it's the bits in the Bible that say women can't preach and should generally just STFU that bugger it up for you all.

[poorchurchmouse]

To those who were asking if this is legal, I'm afraid it is. Thee's a specific exemption for religious bodies under the equality legislation which enables discrimination on grounds of religion, sex or sexual orientation where it is a religious requirement. Some of that is uncontroversial common sense (it's the provision that means, for example, that it isn't unlawful discrimination to say a non-Jewish person can't become a rabbi) and some of it legitimises misogyny and homophobia.

Another Anglican here. I'm so disappointed, angry and ashamed of my church. I hope as a consequence of this fucking awful decision someone looks at how the House of Laity of Synod is elected because it is not representative of ordinary parishioners. At all.

I'm not going anywhere, though. I've been an Anglican all my adult life and I love liturgy and ritual - I would never be at home somewhere else, and the Church of England is doing really good things at the grass roots. Besides, if people like me leave, the misogynists and homophobes win.

[dreamingofsun]

real shame that lay people want church to stay in the dark ages. Not wanting to modernise does no favours for the church and puts people off joining. if an institution is so out of touch with modern living, what help is it going to be in your everyday life?

[1605]

I have not been to church for years and this is why. The Anglican church is hopelessly out of touch with its members, and it despises women and gay people.

To the poster who thinks we shouldn't be allowed a say because we're not churchgoers - refusing to participate is how we're exercising our disapproval and it speaks volumes that the majority of Anglicans do not go to church AT ALL.

It makes me sadder than sad. This is the tradition of worship I know and I cannot feel at home in another, but I cannot love a home and a family that is not loving and is deeply divided and divisive.

[cory]

So we can have female priests, just not really fancy ones

[dreamingofsun]

tiggy - they are the people that represent the churchgoers. unfortunately from the shots on TV most of the people involved in this vote seemed over 80.

[worldgonecrazy]

Come and be a goddess-worshipping pagan. We have women who get to dress up in fancy clothes, and they also get given a bit of authority too.

Seriously, I have female friends who are vicars, and they are angry, sad and full of grief that the fact they haven't got willies makes them unsuitable to have positions of higher authority. I grieve with them.

[Jingleflobba]

I have a male friend who is a vicar, he fully supported women bishops, he posted a note on fb last night sounding so sad about the whole thing.
I still don't understand why in 2012 when church attendance is dropping this s even an issue tbh, inclusion of women on every level could well attract more people to church.
Another one who prefers the Goddess...

[TuppenceBeresford]

You can?t apply secular/worldly values to a spiritual issue; the two philosophies are not compatible.

The reason there haven?t been female bishops up until now isn?t neccesarily down to sexism, although that isn?t to deny that there may well be sexism in the Church of England. I suspect that there are varying degrees of sexism in most Christian denominations, but it?s important to separate genuinely-held, Biblically-based beliefs from mere tradition and prejudice; ie ask whether we do something because it?s Biblical or because it?s just what we?ve always done.

There?s a strong Biblical case for women not having a preaching role in church; it all comes down to our interpretation of certain New Testament passages. I?m not 100 percent sure where I stand on it myself ? I?m almost persuaded but there are other interpretations which unsuprisingly I find more appealing! However, as a Christian my duty is to do my best to obey God?s word instead of trying to twist it in order to fit in with my own values and lifestyle.

On a personal note, I used to struggle a lot more with my denomination?s understanding of Biblical passages of this type as they conflicted with values that most of us take for granted. It took a long time, but I have gradually felt more at peace regarding these issues and I?ve found that there are lots of other ways in which I can serve God, none of which involve making scones or arranging flowers!

[dreamingofsun]

'However, as a Christian my duty is to do my best to obey God?s word instead of trying to twist it in order to fit in with my own values and lifestyle'

tuppence - surely though the bible was written by men, who did exactly what you say above. it was written in a time when it was assumed that women stayed at home and men led.

[iismum]

I think it's a bit unfair to say the CofE despises women when the vast majority of the hierarchy of the church voted in favour. They just have a big problem with the leity. Unfortunately, this seems to attract mostly elderly, reactionary, conservative types who are probably not a good representation of the leity in general. So you have a situation where almost all of the leaders want it, and most of the membership want it, but it's still voted down. It's not a good situation for the church.

The scriptural argument is bollocks. Sure, St Paul said tonnes of misogynist stuff - which may include a direct ban on women preaching, I'm not sure - but most of what he said is ignores in the CofE (e.g., he was very adamant that women must have their heads covered in church). And in any case, women already do preach - they can be priests. There can't be any scriptural reason that prevents women being bishops but allows them to be priests, because the whole notion of bishops is much later. It's just plain misogyny - forced by society to give women some role but only as long as they're actually under the control of a man. And the sad thing is that a lot of the most vicious misogyny comes from women.

[HouseOfBamboo]

"tuppence - surely though the bible was written by men, who did exactly what you say above. it was written in a time when it was assumed that women stayed at home and men led."

Exactly, which is why trying to 'modernise' it and make it socially acceptable today by quietly dropping the non-PC bits is ultimately so pointless. Why not go the whole hog - do a search and replace on 'He' throughout the Bible and change it to 'She'? Or introduce the notion that actually baby Jesus was a girl and that all the references to him being male are a misprint?

[feetheart]

Had a really, really hard time explaining this decision to my outraged 9 year old DD this morning. Anyone on the Synod like to help?

[dreamingofsun]

feetheart - surely very easy to explain...... some very out of touch, sexist people thought it would be wrong. Older people, in particular, were brought up in an age with very different values and unfortunately they inflict these on the rest of the population. In time women bishops are inevitable.

whilst the synod and church agreed with women bishops, some of the people representing the church members didn't. unfortunately because of the way the voting is structured the decision was taken on the mistaken views of a few, rather than the majority.

[cory]

Tuppence, this is precisely why I struggle to understand the present situation: since the Anglican Church has already got woman vicars, it has demonstrated that this is not about the spiritual aspects of preaching or admininstering the sacraments.

The Church is in essence saying, Yes, we will have woman in roles of preaching, just not ones that wield any political or ecclesiastical power. Or, to put it in other words, We will only accept St Paul's strictures on preaching women when it happens to suit us. Does that strike you as a spiritual dimension?

[Anniegetyourgun]

'Scuse me, but as I understand from the radio report the majority of lay members voted for the proposal; it just wasn't a large enough majority to make the change. Hopefully by the next time the issue can be put to a vote, most of the dinosaurs will have died out.

Bamboo, of course Jesus had to be a man, otherwise nobody would have bloody listened!

[GrimmaTheNome]

Annie - that's right. Its not just a matter of dinosaurs dying out though, it also a question of people being motivated to get onto the synod.

[dreamingofsun]

grimma - i didn't think the snod was the problem. i thought it was the leity according to the news last night. maybe this will motivate younger more intelligent people to join that.

[cory]

As far as I understand it, the only spiritual function that a bishop can perform and an ordinary priest cannot is the ordination of priests- and I don't think St Paul has a lot to say about that. So this is very evidently not about spiritual function; it is about the fact that a lot of (hopefully) elderly people feel uncomfortable about seeing women in a position of power. Because the other thing that distinguishes a bishop from an ordinary vicar or curate is just that: power.

[GrimmaTheNome]

I'm no expert but I thought that the 'house of laity' is part of the synod. anyway, the bit that non-clergy can get into, that's what all of you who want to ensure change need to get into or make sure suitable people get into. Don't just leave it open to the no campaigners to disproportionately fill.

[dreamingofsun]

unfortunately, those people who should be hanging their heads in shame won't be reading this post, as they've probably never turned a computer on in their lives.