[Closed] Church of England takes one step closer to being completely irrelevant?

[i]Voted against women bishops tonight[/i]

Yet 72% of those present voted in favour of it. Very odd system.

Dear God.

No seriously... Dear God.

They must be really scared of them there wiminz.

Pathetic.

Had the move been backed by the synod, the proposed legislation would have made its way through Parliament before receiving royal assent.

Can't their wee club change its own rules without tying up [i]our[/i] MPs?

How is this any different to a company trying to preserve a rule that permits only males to serve on its board?

[i]How is this any different to a company trying to preserve a rule that permits only males to serve on its board?[/i]

They're on a mission from God.

Apparently.

Some of the sound bites on the radio from those against truly hark back to the middle ages. One step closer to having no reason to exist in my book.

Are people likely to change their views on the existence of a particular God depending on whether women are allowed to wear pointy hats?

How is this any different to a company trying to preserve a rule that permits only males to serve on its board?

Why would that matter?

My wife's a chaplain and so I'm friends with a few female vicars. Judging by Facebook, to say they're annoyed would be an understatement.

The vast majority of bishops voted in favour, a large majority of clergy voted in favour and a narrow majority of laity voted in favour. But the system they have set up says that 2/3 of each group must approve before the can change.

Although, I suspect that the clergy and bishops are slightly more liberal than a lot of the older grassroots christians. I suspect that there are quite a lot of non-Facebook-using Christians who are quietly pleased.

[quote=chakaping ]How is this any different to a company trying to preserve a rule that permits only males to serve on its board?
Why would that matter?
I think the inference is that such a policy by a "normal" company would be illegal.

I think the inference is that such a policy by a "normal" company would be illegal.

But isn't relevant- there are lots of employers practicing gender discrimination, for lots of reasons, most of them accepted perfectly happily by the population.

There's a big difference between gender discrimination in front-line roles and at board level.

A bishop isn't a boss either.

It probably would have gone through if they had fleshed out the alternative arrangements for clergy who objected to the principle, but these were left open.

Ah sorry mrblobby, I thought you were suggesting companies should be able to do same!

Maybe if they had girlie calendars in church it would have been a different outcome.

Ah sorry mrblobby, I thought you were suggesting companies should be able to do same!

No problem. Just find it strange that we make allowances as a society for such blatantly discriminatory practices based on a religious belief. I personally can't see any difference between the church and any other employer.

If they dont like it (women that is) go and join another religous group.

or start your own.

God must [i]really[/i] hate women.

[quote=fervouredimage ]God must really hate women.
I bet she does.

It's enough to make a vicar swear.

Can't their wee club change its own rules without tying up our MPs?

we also let their club have 24 seats in the House of Lords.

Makes me wonder, if STW ever got bigger visitor numbers than the Church, would we get representation in the Lords and would Chipps get to sit next to the Queen during her outings and engagements.

Chipps [i]is[/i] a queen.

Are Clergy "employed"?

Serious question.

About £20k pa for a vicar IIRC - plus the collection takings and endless cups of tea from the parishioners obviously 🙂

Sadly another STW religion-bashing thread.

I heard some interesting POVs on the Today Prog this morning, but the rate at which it descended into squabbling told me that the CofE is far from ready. And, I have to say, the coincidence of the timing with the time taken for the appointment of Welby as ABofC was unfortunate.

It does, however, call into question the legitimacy of the current operation of the Anglican Church within it's a current format. I doubt it will cause many to reconsider their faith (an entirely private matter), but the role of the Church within the community - something I think still has great value - will continue to be damaged as it appears ever more conservative in the eyes of a changing world. In effect, it continues to reinforce a view that it is outmoded.

The vast majority of bishops voted in favour, a large majority of clergy voted in favour and a narrow majority of laity voted in favour. But the system they have set up says that 2/3 of each group must approve before the can change.

Maybe now is the time for a schism. The bishops and clergy should break away from the laity.

Sadly another STW religion-bashing thread.

Just bashing the bishop(s) I think.

Maybe now is the time for a schism.

It's certainly time for a life of Brian quote!

FOLLOWERS: ...Look! Ah! Oh! Oh!

ARTHUR: He has given us a sign!

FOLLOWER: Oh!

SHOE FOLLOWER: He has given us... His shoe!

ARTHUR: The shoe is the sign. Let us follow His example.

SPIKE: What?

ARTHUR: Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.

EDDIE: Yes.

SHOE FOLLOWER: No, no, no. The shoe is...

YOUTH: No.

SHOE FOLLOWER: ...a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance.

GIRL: Cast off...

SPIKE: Aye. What?

GIRL: ...the shoes! Follow the Gourd!

SHOE FOLLOWER: No! Let us gather shoes together!

FRANK: Yes.

SHOE FOLLOWER: Let me!

ELSIE: Oh, get off!

YOUTH: No, no! It is a sign that, like Him, we must think not of the things of the body, but of the face and head!

SHOE FOLLOWER: Give me your shoe!

YOUTH: Get off!

GIRL: Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!

FOLLOWER: The Gourd!

HARRY: Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us!

ARTHUR: It is a shoe! It is a shoe!

HARRY: It's a sandal!

ARTHUR: No, it isn't!

GIRL: Cast it away!

ARTHUR: Put it on!

YOUTH: And clear off!

SHOE FOLLOWER: Take the shoes and follow Him!

GIRL: Come,...

FRANK: Yes!

GIRL: ...all ye who call yourself Gourdenes!

SPIKE: Stop! Stop! Stop, I say! Stop! Let us-- let us pray. Yea, He cometh to us, like the seed to the grain.

I fail to see how it can be discussed. If the Bible says yes then yes. If no then no. You can't go around changing the rules of a religion to suit a change of fashion.
I have no idea what the Bible says on the matter.

Twitter earlier.

1729: Ilkley Parish Church, West Yorkshire

tweets: Don't forget to pray for #synod now as they vote on women bishops.

Are Clergy "employed"?

Not quite. Some are stipendiary while others aren't.

I fail to see how it can be discussed. If the Bible says yes then yes. If no then no. You can't go around changing the rules of a religion to suit a change of fashion.
I have no idea what the Bible says on the matter.

You may want to look into how the CofE came into existence 🙂

Like police commisoners, women bishops are of no real intrest to the majority of people in the uk, just the church puting its hands up in the air and screaming look at me, look at me.

Are Clergy "employed"?

No not in the conventional sense

I fail to see how it can be discussed. If the Bible says yes then yes. If no then no. You can't go around changing the rules of a religion to suit a change of fashion.
I have no idea what the Bible says on the matter.

You're kidding right? There are numerous parts of the bible that are now ignored by 'the church' as no longer relevant to modern society.

I'm very pleased with the vote. Gives me years more fun watching the C of E get more and more irrelevant.

Like police commisoners, women bishops are of no real intrest to the majority of people in the uk, just the church puting its hands up in the air and screaming look at me, look at me.

Not really. It is the Church of England - the main religious organisation of the largest nation in the UK. It is also intrinsically linked with the establishment and the state. So I can see how it is so significant. In fact, it's significance arises most of all prwcisely because this internal management structuring is being carried out under the public gaze.

Do I care? No. But I do understand why it is important.

And, other than some temporal proximity has FA to do with police commissioners.

thekingisdead - Member

I fail to see how it can be discussed. If the Bible says yes then yes. If no then no. You can't go around changing the rules of a religion to suit a change of fashion.
I have no idea what the Bible says on the matter.

You're kidding right? There are numerous parts of the bible that are now ignored by 'the church' as no longer relevant to modern society.

I believe he was, indeed, kidding. He just failed to use a winky face at the end. 😉

riginally Posted by CANDYANGEL
This might help

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1022833.stm

Curates: £14,680-£15,820
Parish clergy: £16,420
Cathedral-based canons: £20,200
Junior bishops: £24,790
Diocesan bishops: £30,120
Archbishop of Canterbury: £55,660

there are extras-- weddings,fundraisers, collection, and all sorts of social 'invites'-- oh and rent free accomodation. better than being homeless..

Like police commisoners, women bishops are of no real intrest to the majority of people in the uk, just the church puting its hands up in the air and screaming look at me, look at me.

Not really. It is the Church of England - the main religious organisation of the largest nation in the UK. It is also intrinsically linked with the establishment and the state. So I can see how it is so significant. In fact, it's significance arises most of all prwcisely because this internal management structuring is being carried out under the public gaze.

Do I care? No. But I do understand why it is important.

And, other than some temporal proximity has FA to do with police commissioners.

Very few people attend church, very few voted for police commisioners, both have no real power,theyre just talking shops for the educated masses and daily mail readers and both need atention in the press to make them feel theyre needed.

If the church was abolished tommorow who would notice it missing only those who live near a church and hear the bells every sunday.

rudebwoy - Member

riginally Posted by CANDYANGEL
This might help

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1022833.stm

Curates: £14,680-£15,820
Parish clergy: £16,420
Cathedral-based canons: £20,200
Junior bishops: £24,790
Diocesan bishops: £30,120
Archbishop of Canterbury: £55,660

there are extras-- weddings,fundraisers, collection, and all sorts of social 'invites'-- oh and rent free accomodation. better than being homeless..

Just to be clear, the above list is correct, but all other monies are declared and paid directly to the diocese. Accommodation is rent free, but the priest (or whomever) is still responsible for council tax and utilities.

There is a charge for weddings and funerals which is set by the Church Commissioners of the CofE and which goes to the diocese, and the collections are always counted by parish officers who then deposit it in church accounts. A parish priest should seldom, if ever, see it.

ok saxonrider-- i fess up, was being a bit frivolous with the comments, but i am sure most clergy are upright and true , but there are those that stray from the path--and some who should never have been accepted...

Church of England takes one step closer to being completely irrelevant?

Would the Church not have become more irrelevant by ignoring it's principles and choosing to accede to the wishes of non-members?

The Catholic church is stuck in it's ways rather more than the C of E - still pretty popular.

the figures up there are missing a small but important caveat.

For any full time vicars who entered the church over the age of 50, there is no salary and no accommodation - they basically volunteer for 40 to 60 hours a week for free which irrespective of different religious views is a pretty substantial contribution to the wider community.

I didn't know that. Lots of people put in a lot of time to help their community through their church.

My Dad was a vicar, retired a few years early and now uses my inheritance to pop over to Eastern Europe to do missionary things.

The VILF on breakfast TV this morning did say it could go either way

Would the Church not have become more irrelevant by ignoring it's principles and choosing to accede to the wishes of non-members?

It's not ignored the wishes on non-members. It's ignored the wishes of members. A majority wanted women bishops, but a majority wasn't enough.

but a majority wasn't enough.

The VILF on breakfast TV this morning did say it could go either way

My Dad was a vicar, retired a few years early and now uses my inheritance to pop over to Eastern Europe to do missionary things.

that could be interpreted in a number of ways 😳

But not a majority required as stated in the rules, as I understand it.

There are three houses: bishops, clergy and laity. In each, there had to be 2/3 in favour. The laity were 6 short of 2/3 in favour.

As I understand it, local churches vote lay reps onto one level, who they vote reps onto some other level. Then (maybe) another level of voting to decide who gets to go to synod to vote. You can imagine the sort of rule-loving, fuddy-duddy who puts themselves forward at this level, to sit through committee meetings and the like.

Edit:

There are elected lay representatives on the various governing bodies of churches in the Anglican communion. In the Church of England, these governing bodies range from a local Parochial Church Council, through Deanery Synods and Diocesan Synods. At the topmost level, the General Synod includes a house of Laity.

Ok so just got in from a 60 bottle wine tasting with Jambalaya (lots of spitting!), but I don't get this. You either object to woman priests and bishops for the same reasons (rightly or wrongly) but I don't see how you can accept one and not the other. The 'theological' (blimey that took a few goes to type) argument falls over if it is not applied consistently.

What a funny institutions the CoE is!

The fundamentalists argue the bible says "men above women" hence ladies in the top order is going against the bible.

MT - you are wrong elections to the synod are highly politicized and actually are dominated by "party" politics, the parties in this case being the various factions of the church. Middle of the road candidates have to be pretty exceptional - committee dwellers who give up hours of their time to keep the church running have their work cut out to get elected.

MT - you are wrong elections to the synod are highly politicized and actually are dominated by "party" politics, the parties in this case being the various factions of the church. Middle of the road candidates have to be pretty exceptional - committee dwellers who give up hours of their time to keep the church running have their work cut out to get elected.

It's all Greek to me. However, a significant minority of those elected would seem to be out of touch with the ordained members of the church.

ourmaninthenorth - Member

Sadly another STW religion-bashing thread.

Well, I'm sure we'll say something nice about them when they start behaving in accordance with their teachings.

Until then, their utter hypocricy and good old fashioned prejudice make them worthy of all the abuse they receive.

The fundamentalists argue the bible says "men above women" hence ladies in the top order is going against the bible.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."

So technically women shouldn't be allowed to speak at all in church, never mind preach, and they shouldn't be allowed into positions of authority. Aaaaand that's why I decided at a fairly young age that Christianity, just like many other of the major religions, was bobbins. I try not to bash religion, but they make it so easy - especially when they're effectively saying, "Sorry, we don't actually think of you as a proper person".

Although as people have pointed out, the church has disregarded many parts of the Bible as they've become obsolete and socially unacceptable. For example, I'm currently menstruating. According to the Bible, I should shut myself away until the terrible business is done with, then burn a couple of pigeons at the local temple.

Any man reading this is also unclean by default of communicating with a menstruating woman, so you also have to get burning pigeons. Sorry gents.

Apparently blokes are also supposed to make burnt sacrifices every time they visit Mrs Palmer and her five lovely daughters.

I think this tells us that the Christian god really, really dislikes pigeons.

This and the fat twunt that got locked up for child abuse yesterday tell me everything that I need or want to know about organised religion.

The end.

Berm Bandit - Member

This and the fat twunt that got locked up for child abuse yesterday tell me everything that I need or want to know about organised religion.

The end.

Yes, because as we've learnt over the last number of weeks, sexual abuse is the special domain of organised religion.

When I was a kid, the perps were all involved in the scouting movement. And ice hockey. Tells me all I need or want to know about those two institutions.

The end.

Here's one take on "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." - http://www.jameswatkins.com/1Timothy2.htm

Which demonstrates why we probably shouldn't try to live our lives by rules written down in the Bronze/Iron Age.

This and the fat twunt that got locked up for child abuse yesterday tell me everything that I need or want to know about organised religion.

Fabulous reasoning. I assume you've also thrown out your radios and TV sets because of Jimmy Saville?

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

To be fair, they were on to a good track with this one, but come on - if anything shows faith in god and the power of prayer its the belief there's any chance of women remaining silent 😆

The Church of England is irrelevant already. If it wasn't part of the "establishment" it would be [i]totally[/i] irrelevant.
Could be worse though; just imagine if Britain was a Catholic or Muslim peasant country, instead of tolerant , and effectively, secular...

This would normally be viewed as a deviant stance if it involved other sectors of society, but the magic believers wish the rest of us to take them seriously !!!

It's all Greek to me. However, a significant minority of those elected would seem to be out of touch with the ordained members of the church.

But no one's views are more important in the Church, everyone is equal before god etc. A priest's role is to serve his/her "flock" so arguably the laity are the most important.

As I said earlier, I don't think the vote was lost because of a fundamental aversion to women bishops, it was lost because insufficient provision had been agreed for those that are fundamentally adverse to them based on what I heard on the Today programme this morning.

As I said earlier, I don't think the vote was lost because of a fundamental aversion to women bishops, it was lost because insufficient provision had been agreed for those that are fundamentally adverse to them based on what I heard on the Today programme this morning.

That statement is completely contradictory.

[quote=suburbanreuben ]just imagine if Britain was a Catholic or Muslim peasant country, instead of tolerant
There are lots of "tolerant" Catholic and Muslim countries. Most choose not to interfere in, and impose their values on, the running of other countries thousands of miles away either.

That statement is completely contradictory.

There are certain priests who do not want to "report" to a woman bishop, the proposal before the synod has left the mechanism to avoid this happening to regulations to be agreed. Some members I believe did not vote for the motion because this was unsatisfactory and felt that the solution had to be found before the change was made.

An analogous vote would be someone voting against the abolition of the hereditary peers becuase the proposal for its total reform had not been put forward at the time despite believing such an abolition was the right thing to do.

There are lots of "tolerant" Catholic and Muslim countries.

Such as?
Name 5 of each...

spain seems pretty tolerant, (sex and drugs )--Morocco is not a hotbed of fervant islam, i agree with druidh, there are many tolerant regimes of all hues-- and there are intolerant ones likewise-- who wields the biggest stick in the world --USA --what are they --christian i beleive they call themselves...

Catholic:

Spain
Portugal
Italy
Poland
Belgium

Muslim:

Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Ok so just got in from a 60 bottle wine tasting with Jambalaya

To answer the thread title, yes - one step closer.

spain seems pretty tolerant

And in any case, what constitutes a Christian or a Muslim country? You could say that Syria was intolerant, but that was because of the political regime. The Syrian people, majority Muslim, were reputed to be some of the most hospitable on Earth, while Damascus was model for how religious faiths could get along.

Catholic:

Spain
Portugal
Italy
Poland
Belgium

Muslim:

Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

I think you need to research a little deeper, especially on the Muslim countries...

Albania, Turkey, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia

Oh and Iran has numerous synagogues, 25,000 Jewish citizens, and a reserved seat for a Jewish representative in parliament apparently.

Spain, Portugal, Brazil,Argentina,Venezuela for the RC, Morocco, Malaysia,Maldives,Tunisia,The Gambia for the mullahs

what is your point though ?

Catholic:

Spain
Portugal
Italy
Poland
Belgium

Muslim:

Tunisia
Morocco
Jordan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

I don't regard Spain, Italy, Portugal, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan as being tolerant.

I don't regard Spain, Italy, Portugal, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan as being tolerant.

of you or other countries ?

Albania, Turkey, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia

Turkey is officially secular, Lebanon is Christian. Albania, Malaysia? tolerant of homosexuality?

one of the least tolerant places is the USA, especially if you are black and in the 'wrong' area.

DavidB - Member

VILF

[img] [/img]