Them and the Left have no respect for due process

going against the voteNow this is what we’ve been going on about.   If the church can’t act with decency and honesty, then it’s a sorry state we’re in.

Now look – there was a vote and the result was clear from the rank and file – no women bishops.

The leftist/feminazis moaned and cried over it and said the result was not what they wanted and it was this and that blah, blah, blah.

Simple fact was – there was a vote. The result said NO. Unequivocally.

Do you recall a referendum in Ireland? This is why I have no respect for either Them or leftists. You don’t create “observer” bishops because you didn’t get your way.

Which part of NO WOMEN BISHOPS do you not understand?

15 Responses to “Them and the Left have no respect for due process”

  1. Ian Hills February 8, 2013 at 01:37 Permalink

    Good observation, and no doubt church fascists will get their own way with gay marriage too, in due course.

  2. Dalai from Detroit February 8, 2013 at 01:52 Permalink

    How many of the people voting were women?

    Forgive the question, if you’ve said so before, but I haven’t read all your reasoning on this, but why do you consider women bishops a problem?

  3. James Higham February 8, 2013 at 06:33 Permalink

    I’m glad you ask these – it’s almost as if I’d planted the questions to be answered:

    1. There were about half of the vote against who were church women.

    2. Why do I consider them a problem? The issue was not what I think in the least. I’m nothing in this. The issue is twofold:

    a] The laity were given the opportunity to vote on this although my opinion is that it’s not a voting matter. Never mind, the point is that a vote was given and the vote was clear – NO women bishops.

    That is the end of the matter there.

    b] Susie Leafe, one of the women voting NO, gave her reasons as:

    [i] Unity in the church
    [ii] Against discrimination
    [iii] Equal but different

    She further stated:

    The Church is not a workplace, with a hierarchy to climb, but a family in which each member has different responsibilities but is equally valuable. To be called to be a bishop is not to be called to be a CEO but to be a father to the church family.

    It’s hard for non-Christians steeped in the PC feminist narrative to understand the concept of the father, mother and children, each with different roles in the family.

    If the PC narrative has done anything, it is to turn traditional roles on their head and thus nothing functions properly any more. That’s what we see everywhere and that’s what this blog comments on.

    To specifically answer why I see them as a problem – within their own guidebook [scripture] and within the sense of the family and its various members, there is no place for women bishops.

    There is every place for women in the church in many roles. You’ll notice that while the men stood on the philosophical position, Susie Leafe stood on unity and oneness, which is what a mother does when functioning properly and not as teenage girls wanting it all. In other words, it is the comment of a mature woman.

    Thank goodness there are still a few about. ;-)

  4. James Higham February 8, 2013 at 06:39 Permalink

    Ian, your comment and mine crossed. Yes, I had visions of two gay bishops, one black and one disabled, hand in hand, conducting an equality church service. Tokenism writ large.

  5. Ian Hills February 8, 2013 at 07:10 Permalink

    Yuk.

  6. Chrysalis February 8, 2013 at 13:45 Permalink

    Detroit is at work and therefore won’t be responding until later, if he even decides to, it’s his choice.

    However, in the meantime, I have a question – why is it you think shouldn’t this have come to a vote?

    Also, it seems you’re saying people should always accept a “No” when their issue voted against, as a permanent decision, which I don’t think you mean.

    Can you clarify?

  7. James Higham February 9, 2013 at 06:01 Permalink

    Because the scripture of that particular body does not condone it, as Susie pointed out and I think you’d concede she knows a bit more about these things than you or me.

    Their gaff, their rules, that’s the way of it. Let me repeat Susie’s statement:

    The Church is not a workplace, with a hierarchy to climb, but a family in which each member has different responsibilities but is equally valuable. To be called to be a bishop is not to be called to be a CEO but to be a father to the church family.

    I’m with the women on this.

  8. james February 9, 2013 at 09:06 Permalink

    Where does the bible say that women cannot be bishops James? And if it doesn’t, where is the ‘scripture’ for the Anglican Church which does?

  9. Chrysalis February 9, 2013 at 15:46 Permalink

    Oh my goodness, we’re in a flurry of activity around here today, preparing for Detroit’s birthday – so I’m going to try this comment a third time, giving it my undivided attention :)

    Actually, Christ said nothing about gender roles in the church – Paul did.

    Also, Paul often waffled on issues of works vs. grace, contradicting himself and Christ.

    Why?

    Because Paul was often conflicted on whether to please God or please the Pharisees in the church – whom Christ couldn’t stand.

    Proof?

    Paul stated vehemently on many occasions that circumcision was not God’s law, but man’s – then later had Timothy circumcised, to please the Pharisees.

    Paul also was overly focused only sins of a sexual nature, when Christ barely touched the subject, being repeatedly concerned with judgment, greed, arrogance, and hypocrisy.

    And, most importantly, Paul was wholly human – Christ was not.

    As with all humans in the bible, we are not only to emulate their behavior when it glorified God, but learn from their mistakes when they were selfish (Adam, Abraham, David, Peter).

    Paul is no exception – though people unfortunately treat him as if he was.

    During the time of Christ, women had literally the same value as chattle. When Jesus stood in front of the prostitute to prevent her stoning, it was as if he stood in front of a cow, to those men – that single event elevated women as equal status in society.

    Though Political Paul said some great stuff, he also undid Christ’s message in many ways, when trying to please the Pharisees to gain his own acceptance, and we are not to emulate Paul’s behavior in doing so – and one of those ways is not to devalue the role of women when Jesus had just elevated it – and don’t forget, women were the first to see Christ after his resurrection:)

    And lastly, again, could you clarify what you mean by explaining under which circumstances people should accept the outcome of a vote as a permanent solution?

    Thanks :)

  10. Dalai From Detroit February 9, 2013 at 17:36 Permalink

    Tho still contemplating your response, I have to be honest…I can’t get past the ‘separate but different’ stance.

    I thought I agreed with you to a certain degree until you made the comment on black and disabled priests. If your point was tokenism, it doesn’t really read that way.

    I could at least understand your stance on gays based on adherence to Paul’s scripture rather than Christ’s, but why bring race or disability into this now?

    We ARE all equal in God’s eyes…and that has nothing to do with politics.

  11. James Higham February 9, 2013 at 17:59 Permalink

    This is not meant in any way, shape or form to be patronising or disrespectful, quite the opposite.

    The issue is, as has been pointed out ad nauseam by thousands of pundits around the west, that “equal” does not mean “the same”. If you have a look at yourself in the mirror and then at your partner, you’ll see certain anatomical differences.

    There are also things you do better and she does better. They can be complimentary and equal. You quote God so let’s look at that.

    ………..

    14Now the body is not a single part, but many.

    15If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

    16Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.

    17If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

    18But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be?

    20But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

    21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”

    22Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,

    23and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,

    24whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,

    25so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. 26If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

    ………..

    So that’s what Susie was saying – that the hand might be equal to the foot but it does different things. The foot kicks a ball better but a hand grips better.

    All are part of the body.

    http://youtu.be/4DdSONP785Q

    Now the feminists ignored that and tried to make “equal” mean “the same”, i.e. anything your can do I can do better, which is plain ludicrous, just as ludicrous as men childbearing and rearing.

    He’s in there but the child needs both in different ways. The mother more important initially, the father coming into it more later.

    A normal society doesn’t need this explained. Only our society, where things are turned on their head.

  12. James Higham February 9, 2013 at 18:33 Permalink

    where is the ‘scripture’ for the Anglican Church which does

    Precisely. Let me quote Susie Leafe again:

    The Church is not a workplace, with a hierarchy to climb, but a family in which each member has different responsibilities but is equally valuable. To be called to be a bishop is not to be called to be a CEO but to be a father to the church family.

    Other texts:

    http://www.thenassauguardian.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35715&Itemid=88

    http://reform.org.uk/resources/media-downloads/src/publication/10/title/why-are-there-objections-to-women-being-bishops-in-the-church-of-england

  13. Chrysalis February 9, 2013 at 19:11 Permalink

    I agree with Detroit’s yet-to-be-released comment – the scripture you just presented does not differentiate parts of the church body based on gender, you and Suzy did.

    Additionally, with regards to the church “father” and leadership, Christ himself has this to say on that subject:

    Matthew 23:8-12

    “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted”

    And this should go without saying – I think we all know that the Anglican church was mostly created because Henry VII wanted an excuse to divorces his wives. They’re in no position to be picking and choosing which scriptures to adhere to or not. And I say that as an Episcopalian (American Anglican).

  14. Ian Hills February 9, 2013 at 20:10 Permalink

    I look forward to the publication of Chrysalis’ revision of the epistles of Paul, and note that many of the French revolutionaries’ anti-clerical atrocities were committed in the name of Reason.

  15. James Higham February 9, 2013 at 20:38 Permalink

    Chrysalis – pure sophistry – cherry picking. the thrust of scripture is clear – equal but different roles. I could twist scripture too to make it mean the opposite of what was intended – nothing hard in that. Better to take it in its totality.

    Ian – very much so.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string vj9H0O to the field below: