Church of England won't allow female bishops

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/20/church-of-england-female-bishops/1716731

Disappointing, though I'm not really fond of the idea of an office like "bishop" in the sense as it is here anyway. Regardless if I were British and a CoE member (even if purely nominally) this would be enough reason to resign my membership.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Most of the people in the conservative wing in my church (which make up the majority) won't allow women in the ministry either.  I don't understand why, because although the Bible says (I believe) that men are supposed to be the spiritual leaders in families, I can't see why a woman couldn't be a spiritual leader for a church (or even a family if necessary.)  I would consider myself a member of the more liberal wing of my church, not just on this issue but on several others. 

[MrMittens]

Good on them (though I'm a Catholic myself)

[afleitch]

An expected move. What I find curious is the traditionalists rhetoric yesterday of 'we can work together to move forward' despite the fact that they will continue to refuse to budge on the matter and their appeasement led to 12 years of debate. But then the CofE moves slower than a glacier (though still light speed ahead of the RC by comparison)

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

An expected move.

It was? It didn't seem that way from over here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. I'm beginning to think somebody may eventually just have to force the matter at some point. Apparently Cameron is starting to lose patience? Welby definitely seemed pissed. (Williams just looked heartbroken.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Notably (and inevitably) the problem came from the Laity, and even then the problem was insufficient support, rather than majority opposition. The narrow fluke-like nature of this makes it more problematic for the CofE as an institution than if there had been a proper rejection, I suspect.

[DC Al Fine]

The CofE delays its slide into oblivion ever so slightly. Good for them I guess.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

The CofE delays its slide into oblivion ever so slightly. Good for them I guess.

Huh? This is significantly more damaging to the Church--not just the Church's 'image', which I for one really couldn't care less about, but the Church as an institution on both spiritual and temporal levels--than pretty much any other conceivable result, including, as Al says, an actual clear rejection. The Church already ordains (and, not to put too fine a point on it, baptizes and confirms) people who happen to be female, and the entire question of whether or not the episcopate is included in that is solely a question of whether and how to cater to the people who still haven't accepted female priests--a special case, in other words, of a question that's already settled in general terms, not any sort of independent theological debate. Literally nothing new has been said on this subject for twenty years.

This should be seen as the worst possible outcome for the hard small core of theological 'traditionalists' in the sense that a ridiculous technical victory is more damaging to perceptions of their cause as legitimate than a defeat would have been, particularly since said victory is almost certainly temporary. None of the 72% of interested parties who supported women bishops before this are going to stop that support now.

[DC Al Fine]

The CofE delays its slide into oblivion ever so slightly. Good for them I guess.

Huh? This is significantly more damaging to the Church--not just the Church's 'image', which I for one really couldn't care less about, but the Church as an institution on both spiritual and temporal levels--than pretty much any other conceivable result, including, as Al says, an actual clear rejection. The Church already ordains (and, not to put too fine a point on it, baptizes and confirms) people who happen to be female, and the entire question of whether or not the episcopate is included in that is solely a question of whether and how to cater to the people who still haven't accepted female priests--a special case, in other words, of a question that's already settled in general terms, not any sort of independent theological debate. Literally nothing new has been said on this subject for twenty years.

This should be seen as the worst possible outcome for the hard small core of theological 'traditionalists' in the sense that a ridiculous technical victory is more damaging to perceptions of their cause as legitimate than a defeat would have been, particularly since said victory is almost certainly temporary. None of the 72% of interested parties who supported women bishops before this are going to stop that support now.

Eh fair enough on that point. Two questions for you though Nathan.

1) How traditionalist are the "traditionalists" if they haven't left the CofE already? Is the CofE closer to the RCC or evangelicalism in terms of schisms?

2) Where'd you get the 72% stat?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

The CofE delays its slide into oblivion ever so slightly. Good for them I guess.

Huh? This is significantly more damaging to the Church--not just the Church's 'image', which I for one really couldn't care less about, but the Church as an institution on both spiritual and temporal levels--than pretty much any other conceivable result, including, as Al says, an actual clear rejection. The Church already ordains (and, not to put too fine a point on it, baptizes and confirms) people who happen to be female, and the entire question of whether or not the episcopate is included in that is solely a question of whether and how to cater to the people who still haven't accepted female priests--a special case, in other words, of a question that's already settled in general terms, not any sort of independent theological debate. Literally nothing new has been said on this subject for twenty years.

This should be seen as the worst possible outcome for the hard small core of theological 'traditionalists' in the sense that a ridiculous technical victory is more damaging to perceptions of their cause as legitimate than a defeat would have been, particularly since said victory is almost certainly temporary. None of the 72% of interested parties who supported women bishops before this are going to stop that support now.

Eh fair enough on that point. Two questions for you though Nathan.

1) How traditionalist are the "traditionalists" if they haven't left the CofE already? Is the CofE closer to the RCC or evangelicalism in terms of schisms?

2) Where'd you get the 72% stat?

1. The Church of England hasn't really had any outright schisms in recent centuries. It hemorrhages individual members sometimes like any other church (a lot to secularism and/or the Roman Catholics most recently), but there hasn't been an entire theological or social wing to just up and leave in ages. Nothing like what's going with Anglican realignment in North America. It's just not how they do things.

2. That's the percentage of the entire General Synod that voted for the women bishops legislation. It passed Clergy and Bishops by much wider margins than it failed in Laity, which is part of what makes the whole thing so frustrating. I'm not aware of any public opinion polling on the subject, though I'd love to be enlightened by one of our British posters if there is any.

[TJ in Oregon]

I can certainly see how a denomination could come to the conclusion that men and women should have equal roles in the clergy, but how does one come to the conclusion that women may be ordained but not become a Bishop?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, you don't. No one does. What we're dealing with here is institutional inertia.

[k-onmmunist]

they should be disestablished and bishops removed from the house of lords for this alone.

[DC Al Fine]

they should be disestablished and bishops removed from the house of lords for this alone.

The bishops should be removed from the House of Lords because they didn't make the right political decision? That strikes me as silly.

[k-onmmunist]

they should be disestablished and bishops removed from the house of lords for this alone.

The bishops should be removed from the House of Lords because they didn't make the right political decision? That strikes me as silly.

they should have been removed long ago, this should just serve as a catalyst. religion has no place in government.

[memphis]

And yet this person is still the supreme governor

[k-onmmunist]

well, i'm not much of a fan of the monarchy either, but everyone else is apparently.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course the Bishops actually voted overwhelmingly to allow female versions of themselves.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Though on a somewhat related matter, I don't think there's any reason to doubt that disestablishment would do the CofE a lot of good. Always tempted to suspect that this is why it doesn't want it.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Of course the Bishops actually voted overwhelmingly to allow female versions of themselves.

It's morbidly amusing that the 'traditionalist' sorts of Anglo-Catholic got what they wanted (for now) because a bunch of laity voted against the position of the bishops.

[DC Al Fine]

Of course the Bishops actually voted overwhelmingly to allow female versions of themselves.

It's morbidly amusing that the 'traditionalist' sorts of Anglo-Catholic got what they wanted (for now) because a bunch of laity voted against the position of the bishops.

Were the evangelicals anti-female bishops as well?

[k-onmmunist]

Though on a somewhat related matter, I don't think there's any reason to doubt that disestablishment would do the CofE a lot of good. Always tempted to suspect that this is why it doesn't want it.

well, it worked pretty well in scotland [although that wasn't full disestablishment iirc]

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And yet this person is still the supreme governor

Which is strictly a ceremonial matter. The Archbishop of Cantenbury is effective head of the church.

Also, the Queen nor members of her family are not sitting in the House of Lords. Why should Bishops then?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Of course the Bishops actually voted overwhelmingly to allow female versions of themselves.

It's morbidly amusing that the 'traditionalist' sorts of Anglo-Catholic got what they wanted (for now) because a bunch of laity voted against the position of the bishops.

Were the evangelicals anti-female bishops as well?

Some of them, but it's as morbidly amusing in their case.

A pretty clear majority of both Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals were in favor, actually, but the minorities of each wing that were opposed together wound up approximating a third of the House of Laity.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

What exactly is the point of a church having BOTH Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals? Kind of reminds me of the church equivalent to the United Atlas Centrists...