Paul Owen at the Guardian live-blogging the debate at General Synod of the Church of England on a measure to allow women bishops:
How sad.That’s it. The Church of England has voted not to introduce female bishops – its biggest decision for 20 years.
It was a long day of debate, with over 100 speeches made and some points of view repeated a number of times. Broadly, speakers for the motion wanted women to be treated equally in the church and wanted Anglicans to set an example to the secular world in overcoming their differences. Those against felt the concept of female bishops could not be reconciled with scripture, and felt that compromise, for that reason, was not a Christian value.
Some on both sides felt the compromise measure before the General Synod – under which women would become bishops but could delegate authority to a male bishop if their parish requested it – meant the motion was fatally flawed. Others, such as Justin Welby, who will take over from Rowan Williams as Arch[b]ishop of Canterbury in the new year, said the compromise was “as good as we can get”. He urged the synod to vote for the motion. Earlier, Williams, also in favour, had said he wanted the world to look at the Church today and say: “That looks like Jesus Christ."
That’s it from me. Thanks for your comments.
UPDATE: Thanks to Bishop Alan for the picture.
Someone correct this if I am wrong, but isn't the Queen, certifiably female for all her decades on the throne, officially the head of the C of E, THE defender of the faith? Is her she-ness incompatible with scripture? A compromise Her church cannot endorse?
ReplyDeleteGet over yourselves, old men or watch your beloved church empty at an ever increasing pace ... the people will find a new place to respond to God's love for all, not just men.
Marthe, of the votes against women bishops based on the biblical concept of male headship, I can only say the dissonance is deafening.
DeleteMimi,
DeleteAngo-Catholic laity defeated the motion because they did not feel the provisions for giving them sacramental assurance were solid enough. As the Queen is not ordained they have no problem with her.
Conservative Evangelicals do not believe than women should "teach" men, and as the Queen is not a theologian, they have no problem with her.
Erika, I'm sure there will be much commentary on why the motion was defeated, but the fact remains that the Queen is Defender of the Faith, and not everyone will take the trouble to delve into the subtleties. The dissonance is there.
DeleteA real kick in the teeth to both the incoming and outgoing Archbishops of Canterbury. The measure was only 6 votes shy of the required two thirds majority in Laity, and the issue won't be voted on again for another 5 years. That is painful.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this will make splits in the C of E more likely rather than less.
Counterlight, I don't know, but the outcome is very bad for the C of E. I would not like to be in Justin Welby's shoes now. I wonder if any of the votes against were cast by members who approve of women bishops thought the measure too compromised.
DeleteAnd then the entire issue of partnered gay bishops hangs still unresolved, while the closet cases are allowed to minister
"Earlier, Williams, also in favour, had said he wanted the world to look at the Church today and say: 'That looks like Jesus Christ.'"
ReplyDeleteHmmm. If he had worked a little harder we might be a tiny step closer to that reality.
Some are guessing that the laity voted against because of the compromise that women bishops would have to make with this measure.
Bonnie, I'm very interested to know how many progressives voted against the motion because it was too compromised. I presume we will know eventually.
DeleteIn the only explanation of a No vote I've seen thus far
Deletehttp://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-i-voted-no-to-women-bishops-8340833.html
that was NOT the case [As I posted to Thinking Anglicans---we'll see if they post it, I can't count on TA anymore---if this delegate was from one of the 42-of-44 that voted IN FAVOR of women bishops, they should SACK her!]
Quite a picture, isn't it? And Alan is a bishop.
ReplyDeleteI an wary of invoking the "just six votes" lament, given the ongoing whining from the pro-Covananteers about how the Covenant "really passed" in the Church of England since the majority of voters in the combined dioceses voted in its favour. The bar was set higher here - a 2/3 majority in each House - than was the case with the Covenant, where a simple majority of the three estates combined served, in each diocese, to approve or turn down the proposal. Will this embolden the unholy unlikely alliance of ultra-conservative Evangelicals and Anglo-Papalists, or will the next Synodical election see sufficient lay "Ultras" defeated to reverse the vote?
ReplyDeleteParliament will not be at all happy with this and has the power to be rather difficult.
Alan Wilson's sunken Dreadnaught is brilliant.
The motion went down, and that's that; it doesn't really matter by how many votes. I hope the new ABC understands that attempts at appeasement of the anti-women bishop groups don't work. You can never give them enough. Any new motion should be clean and simple: ordain women bishops.
DeleteI still can't believe the vote didn't pass. I was shocked to see the headline. I am contemplating writing to my MP on the issue. Another reason not to attend the CofE (and I'm someone who is actually interested in church). :(
ReplyDeleteOn another note, over 100 speeches? You've got to be kidding. Five speeches is five too many for me. I don't need to hear speeches to make my mind up. Maybe half the people who meant to vote lapsed into some kind of coma instead?
Cathy, have you read Andrew Brown on the debate and vote? "...a long and boring suicide note".
DeleteIt's too bad the Church of England doesn't measure up to your expectations. What about another denomination?
Mimi, does the CofE measure up to anyone's expectations? ...
DeleteCathy, I expect no church measures up, because the members are imperfect human beings, but if I were a member of the CofE, I don't know if I could stay. At some point, enough is enough.
Delete"Traditionalists said things like: "I have always said that I would vote for women bishops if it met the theological objections of the traditionalists." This sounds as if it makes sense – until you remember that the theological objection of the traditionalists is that there shouldn't, or can't be women bishops"
ReplyDeleteHa ha! No I hadn't read Andrew Brown. I'll read the rest now. :)
So what to do, Grandma?
ReplyDeleteWell, down in the leaf litter us worms must just get on with it. Here in Hampshire (that's old not New!) and out in countryside we don't have the town luxury of nipping a few yards down the street to another church/sect. Here, in rural ministry, there's rarely more than one church/chapel per parish and its not only "our own" but also it has to be all things to all Christians and that includes women priests and their aspirations who we've had around here for at least ten years.
So change will come; I think I'm right in saying that now a third of CofE priests are female as are about half of those in college, so the drive for change is strong and getting stronger; I can't see us waiting another 5 years. Another driver is the use of Lay Wordship Leaders (or LWLs - but the name varies) who are essential in our scattered benefices - we're about to be amalgamated again to form a new one of 10 parishes but with only 1 or 2 paid priests. Most of these LWLs are women and when you depend on us worms to that extent to make your benefice work you must take the worms' views into account.
Regards, Charley Farns-Barns.
The church has had women priests for 20 years. It's way past time for women bishops. Did you see my later post with the quote from Tony Baldry? I don't think it will be 5 years either.
DeleteSome action on the subject:
ReplyDelete"In response to the vote Frank Field MP, a former member of the Synod, today tabled a Presentation Bill in Parliament which seeks to remove from the statute book the exemptions from the Equality legislation that the Church of England enjoys. If passed, the Bill would make it illegal for the Church of England to discriminate against women when appointing bishops, as they currently do.
Frank Field said: 'This is a terribly disappointing result, which goes against the firm wishes of the vast majority of Church of England members. Parliament has a role in agreeing to or rejecting the Synod’s decisions, and I believe that MPs should now use this role, in a helpful way, to ensure those firm wishes are complied with.'"
Taken from Frank Field's own website. Field is an Anglican, I believe.
Frank Field is not the only MP who is upset. Being the established church, I don't see how the C of E can be exempt from equality laws. What a mess Rowan will hand over to Welby.
Delete