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.

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

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

She was real?

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 totally 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.

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

Thank you for a fine evening.

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

spain seems pretty tolerant

Apart from nuns stealing babies from mothers they don’t approve of

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