Voted against women bishops tonight

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20415689

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.

Voted against women bishops tonight

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 our MPs?

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

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

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.

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 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 is 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.
If the big fella says ‘no’. I guess everyone has to accept it as His will.

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.

[Quote]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.