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

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]

Back to the original question, already past the line once the current crop of blue rinse and tea party members move on it will have a hard time.

As for sexism, homophobia and racism religion leads the way back to the dark ages.

As for sticking to the rules as laid down by someone else have a quick re read of the history books around Henry VIII. Or if lazy get a DVD out.

yeah that VILF tickled me too !!

Albania, Turkey, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia

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

Looks like I was wrong on Malaysia, not Albania though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Albania

Lebanon is majority Muslim, as is Turkey, even if they aren't officially Muslim countries. US is technically secular but I'd still call it a Christian country.

Grum, i think he was being pedantic anyhow,there is much intolerance close to home 😉

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

Looks like I was wrong on Malaysia, not Albania though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Albania

Lebanon is majority Muslim, as is Turkey, even if they aren't officially Muslim countries. US is technically secular but I'd still call it a Christian country.

The US is officially secular - I believe it's drafted into the constitution- though the power and influence the church(es) have is just plain scary!
That is in total contrast to the UK, which is officially an Anglican country , yet no-one really gives a toss what the Church believes, and we're all the better for it!
Regarding Lebanon: It is a "Christian" country, though was once regarded as the playground of the Middle East, with the tolerance that label implies. It may well now be a largely muslim country thanks to the influx of refugees from less pleasant regimes, and all the shit that hospitality brings...

It may well now be a largely [s]muslim [/s] christian country thanks to the influx of refugees from less pleasant regimes, and all the shit that hospitality brings...

USof A

It may well now be a largely muslim christian country thanks to the influx of refugees from less pleasant regimes, and all the shit that hospitality brings...
[s]
USof A

What shit has the USA had to endure because of an influx of refugees. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're imp,lying that immigrants from south of the border are a burden on the Union? How so?

Eh?

To the people saying "this issue was lack of provision for those parishes that didn't want to report to a female bishop" I'd say you are wrong. Those people are the problem and they should be challenged, not appeased. They as an organisation should be forced to adhere to the non discriminatory practices and laws of the rest of society.

If they personally want to hold outdated beliefs re. women in power then believe away in private but they shouldn't be allowed to let it affect the lives of others. They have the option of standing down, they as individuals are not being forced to anything they don't want to do.

The issue is not the minority who oppose women bishops but the few who voted against even though they support women bishops as they think others should have the right to act in a discriminatory way. Not unpredictable given the historical position of the church I suppose.

What shit has the USA had to endure because of an influx of refugees. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're imp,lying that immigrants from south of the border are a burden on the Union? How so?

IIRC-- the indigenous americans have sufferered greatly from the influx of refugees, but my main point is that its a nation that is made of them, so you will always get upheaval during any process--dialectic if you like