C of E – common sense prevails

Church of England votes against allowing women bishops

Think the Lord might have decided to keep His church Christian – must admit my prayer was on the list there somewhere.

And this was NOT the Synod going against the “overwhelming support” of the people but the very OPPOSITE – it was a victory for the laity over the Synod – the Synod is mightily displeased.  This was a grass-roots victory for the laity over the corrupt left-liberal establishment.

And don’t forget that there were many women in there voting for what was right.  Those women have voted for right, not for their “right” – a major victory for women everywhere.

On that point, the church itself had this to say:

Any fair understanding of the conservative argument against Women Bishops would acknowledge that it has absolutely nothing to do with a view that women are “inferior to men”. It is utterly disingenuous at this point in the debate to launch such a puerile attack effectively branding every opponent of women bishops as a misogynist. The conservative argument sits independently of Gal. 3:27 and, indeed, affirms it.

To then move on to antisemitism and slavery is another utter canard. These are matters on which, it is certainly true, certain elements of the church have had varied views at different times but the overwhelming consensus over the decades and a prevailing view in the early church was that anti-semitism and slavery were wrong. By contrast you cannot find anyone arguing for a female episcopacy until very very recently.

Are we really suggesting that the church has been, almost in totality, wrong on this issue for 2,000 years? What arrogance.

What it will mean is not the disaster and regression the leftists are going on about – the Times headline “Church rejects women’ is an out-and-out lie – but an incremental step forward for both men and women on the long, winding, difficult path upwards.   It also sets the church, as it always should have been, diametrically opposite and opposed to the State.

Bring it on – this may well be the third step in the crumbling of the faux PC edifice, the first being the protests in France over the gay mafia and the accession of Jean-François Copé.   So, in this respect, it’s not just a church thing and libertarians and patriots everywhere can take heart at this decision.

I can’t wait to join battle with the State when the first test case arises – could it possibly be that the nation is on the way back?   One can only hope and pray.

Moreover, it might also mean the return of the lost sheep who’ve been forced out of the church and can now return with a little more confidence that the church will finally do the right thing.

Hallelujah.

17 Responses to “C of E – common sense prevails”

  1. Welshcakes Limoncello November 20, 2012 at 22:26 Permalink

    No one’s been “forced” out of the church – people left of their own accord because they cannot accept the next obvious natural development in its history. If you have equal opportunities, that should apply in all fields.

  2. James Higham November 20, 2012 at 22:35 Permalink

    No, there’s no “natural development” in Christianity. It is a set of principles which are the rock of ages, not subject to the vagaries or whims of fashion.

    That’s the whole point of the church. Without that, it might as well just be a political party.

  3. CherryPie November 20, 2012 at 23:59 Permalink

    I would take it back to basics and away from politics.

    What do the scriptures say about this? What does the Bible say (or not) about this?

    I suspect what you find there will surprise…

  4. James Higham November 21, 2012 at 01:27 Permalink

    It was a surprise and was less for the ordination of women than I’d thought.

    I’d originally thought that there was no specific reference to bishops per se and there wasn’t but there was much scriptural reference to the leadership of the church.

    As the church itself stated in that quote:

    By contrast you cannot find anyone arguing for a female episcopacy until very very recently.

    And that is so – it is part of the feminist push of recent decades and as such, has no scriptural basis. So the vote taken was actually correct along scriptural lines.

    The question is whether scripture is of any relevance to the CofE or whether it’s a political/social organization now.

  5. banned November 21, 2012 at 05:54 Permalink

    As a lapsed CofE I don’t presume to a say in how they run their affairs but neither should Chris (underpants) Bryant and the rest.
    Those who feel strongly that women should be able to become Bishops are perfectly free to go away and form their own Church.

    “This was a grass-roots victory for the laity over the corrupt left-liberal establishment” Other branches of said left-liberal establishment take note.

  6. banned November 21, 2012 at 07:41 Permalink

    Just seen in the Telegraph that Ben Bradshaw has stuck his oar in which gives me the opportunity to say up with antidisestablishmentarianism for the first time on a blog.

  7. JD November 21, 2012 at 09:37 Permalink

    No, there’s no “natural development” in Christianity. It is a set of principles which are the rock of ages, not subject to the vagaries or whims of fashion.
    That’s the whole point of the church. Without that, it might as well just be a political party.

    The established Church has been political right from its beginnings.
    That is why some Gospels were excluded from the ‘approved’ texts – the gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas etc

    this is from Mary’s gospel-
    I have left no commandment but what I have commanded you, and I have given you no law, as the lawgiver did, lest you be bound by it.”
    http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel-magdalene.htm

    hardly surprising that one was excluded! If that were to be included the Church would have no control over people.

    The Life Of Brian got it spot on when ‘Brian’ shouted to the crowd – “No! You’re supposed to work it out for yourselves!”
    Which is what Jesus said to Peter when he asked “Are you the Messiah?” Jesus replied “Who do you say that I am?”

    as Cherie says ‘take it back to basics’ and there it is :)

    nothing wrong with women leaders in churches by the way – the women did not run away and hide at the time of the crucifixion they remained in vigil at the foot of the cross and the Risen Christ revealed Himself first to Mary of Magdala and not to one of the ‘officially recognised’ disciples.

  8. James Higham November 21, 2012 at 09:46 Permalink

    nothing wrong with women leaders in churches by the way – the women did not run away and hide at the time of the crucifixion

    Which shows that you too are confused about this. Being around and playing a role, though marvellous, never equated to taking leadership of the church – it never did through history and it is only now, under the feminist onslaught, that it has reared its head.

    The women in the church themselves voted for this, hence it was passed. The feminazis did not. This time they lost and oh how they’re wailing and gnashing their teeth.

    As Cherie said, JD – take it back to basics and there is no other choice the church could have made.

    ………..

    As for the inclusion of the Apocrypha or not, yes certainly it was political but it was also done with good intent by so many of those fathers who, by their lights, were devout men. It’s a product of the modern era of PCism that everything has to be viewed in gender terms. History can be viewed in many other terms as well and in fact was for thousands of years.

    ………..

    Banned has had the least politically biased comment so far. I don’t purport for a second to be neutral in this but he was.

  9. CherryPie November 21, 2012 at 19:08 Permalink

    Some additional comments.

    The vote was only narrowly defeated, the figure 6 was reported which means more than half were in favour.

    As to the issue of women being allowed positions in the Church. It is not new this has been been on the agenda and discussed for more than twenty years, possibly even longer than I know about.

    As banned mentioned I suspect some people will now vote with their feet and I am sure it won’t just be women.

  10. James Higham November 21, 2012 at 19:37 Permalink

    Yes but that was going to happen either way, whether it went the Christian way or the PCist way.

    This is the essential problem with PCism – it deliberately introduces the element of antagonism and divides us into camps. Before it came into vogue, there weren’t these divisions all the time.

    You and I would probably have agreed on most things, Cherie. This is the evil of PC.

    And the women and others who will depart are the non-Christians so that’s not a bad thing. They’ll form some kind of American Evangelical mish-mash and disappear. The CofE on the other hand, once dying, will now stand firmer on issues as it always should have done under Williams and those before him. In troubled times, to know there is a body in the society which will do that, sticking to eternal values unchanged – hope, faith, charity, fidelity, compassion – is worth much succour to the unfortunate.

    The last thing they need is a wishy-washy, nebulous body which says and does as David Cameron would like them to. Ditto in Russia.

  11. CherryPie November 21, 2012 at 21:47 Permalink

    And the women and others who will depart are the non-Christians

    In the context I meant, I would argue that they are Christians and can’t be doing with Church politics. Those ‘people’ will join one of the other long established Christian denominations that have long been recognised in this country. A denomination that focuses on the scriptures, their teachings (which include the eternal values), and spirituality rather than getting bogged down in politics and control.

    The Church of England has come on a long way in the last 30 years but judging by the comments on the news today there are those within the hierarchy that don’t understand the Christian message. I find that very sad.

    The bottom line is the scriptures teach a message which should not be distorted by any organisation or individual for there own aims.

  12. James Higham November 21, 2012 at 22:11 Permalink

    A denomination that focuses on the scriptures, their teachings (which include the eternal values), and spirituality rather than getting bogged down in politics and control.

    That’s precisely what’s happened here. Now those political people who are howling can leave, the ones getting bogged down in feminism and that leaves the people who are there for the eternal values and spirituality. Terrible thing, feminism, isn’t it, when they can’t separate it from their faith?

  13. CherryPie November 21, 2012 at 22:25 Permalink

    From your comments and focusing on one issue it makes me wonder if you have ever attended a Church regularly?

    Have you ever attended the Church of England? Have you been there felt it and breathed it over a number of years?

    Please re-read my previous comment and not just focus on the political issue.

  14. James Higham November 21, 2012 at 22:57 Permalink

    I am Church of England, Cherie, yes.

    And it’s not just the religious aspect, there is also the Parish aspect with people getting along with each other and doing various things.

    That’s how it was until these political people you refer to came into it – it’s steadily increased since the 60s. Now I called them non-Christian for a good reason – they are pushing a political stance and giving it precedence over both the religious and social aspects [ministry] of the church. These people can’t leave well enough alone – they’re after power.

    Many good men and women – and in this outcry on Radio 4, everyone was forgetting the women – these good people simply said no – it was wrong to politicize the church. You can gauge their character from Radio 4 and hear some of things being said there, all the threats, all the politicization.

    The laity – including men and women – don’t forget the women – voted by majority to stick to scripture. Now this doesn’t mean for a second that women aren’t appreciated or don’t contribute – they contribute massively. There’s no biblical precedent for women bishops, that’s all.

    Once again, a churchman explains but no one wishes to hear:

    Any fair understanding of the conservative argument against Women Bishops would acknowledge that it has absolutely nothing to do with a view that women are “inferior to men”. It is utterly disingenuous at this point in the debate to launch such a puerile attack effectively branding every opponent of women bishops as a misogynist. The conservative argument sits independently of Gal. 3:27 and, indeed, affirms it.

    It is utterly disingenuous at this point in the debate to launch such a puerile attack, that’s what he said and it is disingenuous and this is the distressing thing – such lies being told, such political lies and it’s meant to be a church.

    That’s why it’s better they do walk and politicize some other church. Or else start to put the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before their worldly power play.

    ………..

    Having mentioned the laity who are good people and offer their time and service, I’m the first to say I’m far more political than religious in temperament, which is not to say I won’t fight His corner, I will but I’m political in makeup and don’t apologize for that.

    For example, it is through a number of people that we’ve helped expose Common Purpose. Now that might not mean anything to you but it does to many out there who have now woken up and have seen that these people wish to control the internet.

    The work we’re called on to do is not always directly through a parish but it’s still work of importance – that is, it’s important to do it. So, from where I’m sitting, I’m immersed in politics and expect all the hacking and taking down of the site and abuse I get each day, some of it quite vitriolic because people don’t like to be reminded of truths or for things to come out.

    Where politics should never have come into it was in the church. And that’s what I’ve been arguing. That’s why I was delighted that their political push and collusion was stymied.

    ………..

    Now we come to insults. I don’t mind the insults – for example, one blogger asked, ‘Have you ever volunteered for anything, James?” Now that’s deeply insulting because it suggests I haven’t.

    Actually, I do but don’t speak of it much.

    So I don’t mind the insults myself but I do object to these good people, just because they took a vote the way the PTB don’t like, are being given terrible stick. It’s deeply insulting to call these women who have spent a long time in the church “kept” women with no minds of their own but that’s what the left do – throw the insults around willy-nilly.

    I know some of those Christian women – in fact I’m with one every weekend – and she is a fine person and nobody’s lapdog – and yet that’s what she was called on Radio 4 today.

    That’s just plain wrong.

  15. CherryPie November 21, 2012 at 23:34 Permalink

    I just asked a simple question which was:

    Have you attended any Church for a number of years?

    I then went on to mention the Church of England in particular because that is the Church you are talking about in your post. A Church with which I am very familiar because I attended the services regularly for 15 years.

    In those years I was given two conflicting messages one was the love thy neighbour, do unto others as you would have done to you and the like which comes from the scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. But the ministers at that time ranted and lectured that if didn’t do as I was told I would be condemned to hell.

    The two messages were in conflict with each other, one is authoritarian and one is libertarian… I was left to figure it out for myself.

    The Church body started out as a form of control and as I mentioned previously the Church of England has come on a long way since then but there is still a little way to go.

    In my mind mixing spirituality (which is supposed to be one of the main message of the Christian Churches) and politics is plain wrong.

  16. James Higham November 21, 2012 at 23:55 Permalink

    Agreed on that last point. Also, excuse me as I had a couple of body blows today in RL and was a bit under the hammer.

  17. CherryPie November 22, 2012 at 00:02 Permalink

    With regard to the body blows. I hope you are OK?

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string lk114t to the field below: