Trads threaten walk-out over women

As we report exclusively today, more than 1,300 clergy and bishops in the Church of England, 60 per cent of whom are still serving, have written an open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York threatening to leave the Church if women are consecrated bishops with no legal provisions for opponents. You can download here the full letter and list of signatories. The 11 bishops are the three flyers, Ebbsfleet, Richborough and Beverley, plus the flyer-without-wings Fulham, and then the suffragans and assistants Burnley, Horsham, Plymouth, Edmonton, Newcastle, Whitby and Pontefract. Two of them, Simon Morris of London and Philip Corbett of Southwell, both in their twenties, were only ordained last Sunday.

Update: from The Times leader today, 3 July: 'The more immediate challenge this weekend, however, comes not from Foca but from clergy unreconciled to women bishops. They want permanent, binding safeguards for traditionalists which Dr Williams and others are unwilling to concede for fear of enshrining discrimination. He must therefore address their defiance in York as vigorously as he has replied to the Gafcon rebels. On his performance hangs not only the unity of the Church of England but the prospects for the fractious Lambeth conference. Rarely has a challenge been as daunting.' Also in the same paper, George Walden says Dr Williams is a closet liberal, and that he must come out of the closet and campaign for full equality for homosexuals in the church, or resign.

At the Watch press conference at Westminster Abbey, Dean of Southwark Colin Slee condemned previous reports that 500 might leave as 'rubbish'. Watch's Christina Rees has also said in the Church Times that this was not true. I have to concede they were right. The number is far higher than 500.

Well done though Ann Cryer , pictured top, who at the Abbey meeting highlighted the far worse position of women in Islam. She pointed out that in her constituency, there are mosques where women are not even allowed in. As for them becoming imams, well excuse me. And then what about the Catholic church? Women bishops anyone? Sadly, it is far more likely that the Church of England will appoint a Catholic or Muslim woman as one of its own bishops than launch campaigns for an end to discrimination against women in Islam or Catholicism, even though the bishops continue to justify their seats in the Lords by claiming universal representation.

Of course the Anglican bishops can hardly campaign on this front before putting their own 'house in order'.

But even though Church of England bishops claim to represent all in the Lords as one of the key arguments against disestablishment, you don't hear much from them about the plight of the often illiterate and inarticulate Muslim women barred even from the mosques of their own religion in Britain.

The male bishops already in the Lords could certainly campaign about that, even without women bishops to do it for them. Legally though, they can argue they don't have to. As Baroness Howe, the first female vice-chair of the Equal Opportunies Commission, told us, when the sex discimination legislation was passed back in the 1970s there were all kinds of exemptions besides religion. Even miners were exempt, and gentlemen's clubs. So that gets the male bishops nicely off the hook. But for how long, I wonder.

Should a woman turn up in the top five in the hierarchy and appear as a bishop in the House of Lords in around 2012, as is certainly possible, it could well be one of the women at the Abbey conference yesterday, the Abbey's own Canon Jane Hedges, or Canon Lucy Winkett from St Paul's.

Will she argue for an end to discrimination against Catholic and Muslim women in Britain? Will she campaign for an amendment to equality law to include religions? Or is it as usual just the Church of England that gets it in the neck, made by its own democratic government to modernise according to secular norms, while multi-cultural Britain's other religions, all led by men, are allowed to continue their discrimination against women not just with impunity, but with protection.

Comments

[Cyrus]

The vexed question of female ordination or consecration to the episcopate is a theological question. It is NOT something which can be trivialised by resort to secular concepts such as equal opportunity and the like. With its usual arrogance the Anglican church be it in England or the USA claims to be part of the wider Catholic church but deigns to ignore the views of the rest of that wider church. Still one only has to look at the friends of the sodomites in the USA, the schism they have caused, GAFCON,and the weak kneed response of the ABC to the ECUSA to see what a complete mess the Anglican communion has got itself into trying to be more post modern than the post modernists. As ye sow so shall ye reap.

[Graeme Buttery]

Ruth,
just for the sake of completeness, shouldn't you mention the Reform petitions on women in the episcopate as well as the lay women petition of some eight thousand names? And then when all honour has been satisfied, and all consciences mollified, the CofE can get down to the business of providing for ALL its people.

Graeme Buttery

(rg writees: if you could post a couple of links to those and any more petitions you know of I'ld be grateful Ruth)

[Fr Mark]

Cyrus: but this list includes a very large number of gay clergy. I cannot believe that any of them is really contemplating leaving the C of E. The alternatives are all organisations which will persecute them on the basis of their sexuality.

[Alistair]

"The vexed question of female ordination or consecration to the episcopate is a theological question"

And that's why there is a problem, since it is apparent that "theology" can lead to whatever interpretation you want it to lead to, which is usually the one that matches up with one's own prejudices.

Can Cyrus suggest a point in history to which he would like church practice and dogma to revert?

[George Parr]

Since so many members of the Anglican clergy are at variance, not only with the reformers in their church, but clearly do not represent the society in which they reside, now must surely be the time to separate fully the church from the state. Indecision, rancour and poor leadership on this scale, over gender, sexuality and human rights, would not be acceptable in government, commerce or in any other public institution.

It has long since been suspected that the Anglican Church is, in part, an elitist club, claiming privilege within the secular culture it continually preaches morality to.

Since Anglicanism appears to maintain social prejudices that are thinly disguised as traditional scriptural 'values', and any attempts at reform are seen to promote considerable disarray, the question must be asked just exactly what it brings to our, now very wide, pluralist society.

We have heard a considerable amount of evidence which reeks of institutional self-interest and a fear of attenuated importance. Do we really want these squabbling self-appointed worthies in our legislature, spending our money or spreading their socially divisive policies within our antiquated schools system?

Is the way forward to teach our children that some people have a higher value than others due to their sexuality, or that there is a disparity in worth between male and female, apparently sanctioned by God? Are we all convinced that Christians are in the world to deliver these long-dead messages?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Back in 1992 when women priests were being discussed in General Synod, it was asserted by one of the proponents of the Measure that only some 35 clergy would leave as a result. Ultimately some 450 stipendiary clergy resigned and hundreds more who were not in full-time ministry. Ordinations dropped from about 150 a year to less than a dozen. Some £25m was paid in financial provisions to those who were jobless after resigning.

This time, unless the Synod makes it possible for opponents to continue in the Church of England, it will not only be the Catholics who leave, but considerable numbers of Reform and other conservative Evangelicals.

And as Gafcon has demonstrated, there will be many more who choose to remain in their present post, and withdraw all active involvement in the life of the official body, setting up their own networks of episcopal ministry, fellowship and finance.

Is it really necessary to go down this path, just so that the Church of England can ape secular equal rights law? Does it have to be ripped apart in order to satisfy the demands of those who want to silence Anglicans who dissent from their views?

That is the implication of the Westminster Abbey meeting. "We want women bishops AND we want to impose them on you."

It won't work.

[Anon]

The problem of women bishops, is that any woman who applies for the position doesn't hold any high regard for scripture, as scripture says only men should lead the church.

So get enough women bishops, and then the whole leadership consists of people who don't really believe what they are preaching.

We can look at our American cousins who have had women bishops for a few years now. They hounded any priests who wanted only male clergy out of their jobs (do a quick search on Jane Dixon:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_18_118/ai_76134163

So all the people who believed in the word of God left the church. Its only that last generation remaining.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/dojustice/j325.html

"Let us begin with Sunday School figures. In 1965, there were 880,000 children in our Sunday School programs. In 2001, that number had declined to 297,000"

Yes. Lets get women bishops. Then we can close the Anglican church for good and get back to a fundamentalist faith.

Oh, and for a comparison with denominations that stuck with the bible, look at the Southern Baptists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

From 10m in 1965 to 16m in 2005.

The faith won't die if people are taught truth. It will die when the people that are teaching it no longer believe what they are preaching. And rightly so. If COE approves women bishops, it will be the final nail in its coffin and into irrelevance. The Catholics have already overtaken them in numbers.

[Graeme Buttery]

Ruth,
sorry, but I am useless at this electronic age of communication! The Reform petitions can be accessed through their website, they are on the same site as the "pro" petitions. ( Is it go petition or something?) aS for the lay women one, you can either try the Bishop of Burbley's wife, or Fif. I think

Graeme

[George Parr]

"So that the Church of England can ape secular equal rights law"

What a self-serving homage to elitism. Members of the Church of England are subject to the same laws that everybody else is. The church is not a political party. It has no special dispensation. Its hierarchy are not gods or kings. The men and women it discriminates against are just as offended, humiliated, demonised or disadvantaged, as if attacked by any other unpleasant institution.

These issues can be cloaked in any amount of ecclesiastical rigmarole and elastic, enigmatic verbiage, but the levels of prejudice are only too easily decipherable.

The dysfunctional institutional response to both the questions of sexuality and gender, and the weak, fragmented attempt by clerics to justify their diverse standpoints actually screams irrelevance at any meaningful social level.

General Synod, Gafcon et al, have no democratic mandate, refer only to squabbling Anglicans and should not protect those who advise and support institutional discrimation on a wider scale.

[Pat Roberts]

Ruth, the letter is impressive; but what would the signatories actually DO? Their opponents who want women bishops must be calculating that these dissenters (for that is what they have been forced to become) have no haven. Rome will not take them; they cannot declare UDI within the C of E without being dispossessed of their church buildings and benefices. Will they simply resign?

[saint]

Excuse me, but WTF should Anglicans or be campaigning for Muslim women to enter mosques? Shouldn't they be inviting them to church instead? Tell me too does the House of Lords or whatever also determine who may or may not take communion in a Catholic church?

Frankly too any woman who thinks the priesthood or the episcopacy is her right, should not even be in ministry.

[Fr Mark]

Anon: the RC Church is currently declining faster than the C of E, in fact.

[Tim]

Don't forget that the Church of England got into its current messy situation entirely under the leadership of an all-male episcopate.

[Claire]

It is not only priests who will leave the church but a considerable number of laity too and I will be one of them.

[J Pearce]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that women cannot be promoted up the hierarchy of the Church organisation. This is nothing to do with Biblical interpretations and everything to do with self-imposed organisational rules.

Even if, for the briefest of moments, we were to entertain the idea that a Universal Creator God even cared about the gender specifity of human religious practice (as if…!), this is nothing to do with any sublimed Word of God - and everything to do with how a bunch of iron age proto-mysogynists decided to run their cult.

So no, it is not a theological question at all; it is, in reality, a question of organising one's resources. Not that reality and religion are closely acquainted, obviously.

The fact that ingrained mysogyny remains in todays Church and commands wide support from religious practioners (mostly male you'll note), is testament to the utterly senseless, divisive and barbaric nature of religious belief. UK society at large began to diverge itself of institutionalised prejudice in 1918; almost 100 years later, the Church still purports to condone and codify crass sexism as something "worthy".

The fact that so many men oppose women bishops is testament to the foetid, medievalist prejudices still swirling around in religious congregations today.

And the religious expect wider society to take them seriously? Why should secular, democratic institutions regard the religious as anything more relevant than a bad joke, when their expressed aim is to reverse human progress and drive us all back to a state of antiquity?

Disestablishment is the only way forward - UK society and the Church are heading down divergent paths and the Church is splintering as a result. It cannot be taken seriously as any kind of moral arbiter, let alone a political player. Let the age cultdom embrace Christianity and leave society to those who actually care about it.

[Peter Kirk]

These 1300 clergy and bishops are in fact arguing not against women leadership but for greater state control over the church. I hope they realise this. They may be wise not to trust the church leaders to keep their own rules, but instead by insisting that the state makes the rules they seem to be selling out the church to the state, to a government which can be trusted even less to support their position. Anyway, why should it make rules for them which contradict its own political philosophy? It is a sad day when Gordon Brown is considered a more trustworthy church leader than Rowan Williams.

[Christopher Smith]

To the question "Can Cyrus suggest a point in history to which he would like church practice and dogma to revert?" then the answer is to look in the bible - it's often quite good on first order theological issues! Many of us who are faithful Anglicans have come to a reasoned conclusion that Jesus' calling of male Apostles was NOT conditioned by the social norms of the time but his actions are telling us something rather more profound. The key, for me, is the recognition that in all His other dealings Jesus confronted and confounded those same social norms (moneychangers in the temple, woman caught in adultery, prostitutes, tax collectors etc etc.) and yet he still chose 12 male disciples and when a vacancy arose…yes, chose another male disciple. Some may not accept this as a definitive argument against the ordination of women but it raises a question which is so fundamental that no reasonable person would seek to drive me from the Church of my birth for holding this view or assert that equality issues override all other arguments. Or would they?

[David Waller]

What is good is that the names of the signatories of the letter arguing for structural provision have been put in the public domain: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_413.shtml

It is good that people are prepared to be identified and sad the earlier letter from female clergy resisting such provision did not include the names of the signatories.

The online petition from laity calling for a single clause can be discounted on the grounds that some signatories note they are from overseas, others claim to be Roman Catholics and an e mail inviting signatures specifically stated that non churchgoers should be asked to sign. Not only does this significantly lower the number of signatories but it also raises deeper questions. If the figures supporting a single clause are not so high as claimed, and if the myth that no one will leave has now been exposed, on what basis might one be expected to trust the word of the proponents on other matters such as the promise to abide by a code of practice.

[Tom]

Having read today's front page article in the print edition of the Times, I cannot but wonder why Ruth Gledhill is constantly misleading her readers.

The headline reads "Clergy plan mass exit over women bishops".

Ruth reports that more than 1,300 clergy say "that they will defect from the Church of England".

The next paragraph says that they "give warning that they will consider leaving the Church".

The original document again reads differently: "We will inevitably be asking whether we can, in conscience, continue to minister as bishops, priest and deacons in the Church of England ... We do not write this in a spirit of making threats or throwing down gauntletts."

So what? They might not be leaving after all?

I have read countless articles of that type in the Times now. It is enough. One gets the impression that Ruth Gledhill likes the idea of schism so much that she can't wait to see it happen. It is understandable that she wants to push things a bit ...

She has completely lost my trust as a reader of the Times though.

[Soreofhing]

I trust those angry bishops who are going to leave the church will also immediately resign their unelected positions in the House of Lords.

[James F. Warren]

Ruth

Twenty years ago I left England and the COE and moved to the United States, where I have been privileged and blessed to be a member of the Episcopal Church. I am proud to say that my congregation here in Washington, like the vast majority of Episcopal churches, accepts everyone in Jesus' name, man or woman, gay or straight, and has no time whatever for the pernicious, and often hateful, prejudices of the traditionalists, whether they be in the United States, England or anywhere else. We have both gay priests and women bishops and count ourselves blessed to have them. We are also blessed to be part of the Anglican communion, but if some of our brothers and sisters are scandalized by our tolerance, we shall carry on as we are regardless, serving God, as we see it, in the same spirit in which we were all baptized.

James

[joe]

Is anyone starting a sweepstake on how many splinter groups will emerge from the ashes of the Anglican communion? I'm betting on 5.

[Rachel]

http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.com

Please don't think that Bible prohibits women in ministry. It clearly doesn't. How could God will half his creation to not lead others to Jesus. Please see my blog where I offer interpretation and resources on these issues. Women should not be silenced, neither should men when spreading the beautiful truth of Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

[Jenny]

"The problem of women bishops, is that any woman who applies for the position doesn't hold any high regard for scripture, as scripture says only men should lead the church."

ANON: It is simply not true that those of us who are female and who also truly believe ourselves called to leadership within the church do not hold scripture in high regard.

As much as I dislike labels, I am a female ordinand who is very much evangelical. I believe scripture to be God's word and I seek to live my life by it as well as encourage those to whom I minister to do likewise.

However, I see in scripture no barrier to the full and complete exercise of women's leadership at all levels within the church. It was not until the third and fourth centuries AD that church structures became formalised enough for women to be excluded roles of leadership, and this was due wholly to Greco-Roman ideas about women remaining submissive.

Paul's comments were directed to specific churches at specific times, as he attempted to address the issue of why women were seemingly more drawn towards false sects than men. I challenge you to re-read the New Testament and discover just how radical both Paul and Jesus were in their attitudes towards women.

Whilst I have every sympathy with those who object, with integrity, to the appointment of female bishops, until the C of E appoints women into every level of leadership and ministry, it will continue to be seen by those around as irrelevant, prejudiced and discriminatory.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

George Parr will always fail to comprehend when he insists on applying a secular mindset to the Christian faith.

[George Parr]

Dear Rachel, I am not a Christian, but I was struck by your gentle post, which is the very antithesis of the overbearing and harmful gender attitudes expressed by some of the super-pious.

I have always believed that faith is a personal thing and it amuses me to note that some people here rank themselves nearer to God than others, or think they can achieve anything at all through stubborn entrenchment.

They are all tipping themselves out of the cart on their crazy journey, whilst furiously asserting that some are more worthy travellers than others.

[Anon]

Tim, if you think the COE is messy now, you need to go and look at the Episcopal church and the Canadian church for a vision of what the future holds.

FR Frank - you are right. The Catholics are being saved by the influx of Poles. The long term trend is Christianity will be overtaken by Islam in this generation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3890080.ece

[Anon]

Jenny

Thats the problem. You have to make the bible mean something other than its plain meaning.

http://www.ichthys.com/mail-women%20preachers.htm

What that means is that anyone with a more literal position on the bible will disagree, and leave the church. So eventually you are left with a church without those people saying "but what does the bible say about that". And without that voice, the church loses its way, and eventually it will die. As it should.

[Stephen Marsden]

Ruth, it's really a lot simpler than many of your correspondents make out. A significant minority within the C of E (represented by the signatories to this letter) hold that the ordained ministry should be reserved to men, in obedience to the express will of our Lord; in this they share the position of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world today. On the other hand, a majority within the C of E, convinced by a series of almost entirely secular arguments, believe that the innovation of women priests and bishops is a legitimate development. No way will the two sides ever agree – so why can they not agree to disagree?

Fifteen years ago, solemn promises were made to the Church of England at large, to the General Synod and to the Crown in Parliament, to the effect that those who could not in conscience accept the innovation would have an honoured place in the C of E ‘in perpetuity’. I for one do not believe that those who made those promises (Archbishops Carey & Habgood, Professor David MacLean etc) were lying. They meant what they said and, as a result, countless members of the Church stayed and were not driven out. Had it not been for those promises, thousands upon thousands of us would have left.

All we are asking at this juncture is that those promises be honoured. Ordain women as bishops by all means, but at the same time continue to make equitable provision. Make the words ‘in perpetuity’ mean what they are supposed to mean! Adequate, generous provision – such as the new, special dioceses about which we have heard so much – is all that it takes! So many fruits would inevitably follow: the C of E could get back to its primary purposes of mission and evangelism, women would minister as bishops in much of the church, those unable to accept their ministry would likewise thrive, you could stop writing about schism (at least some of the time) and we could all turn on our radios without having to hear the voice of that Christina Rees woman every other day. What bliss!

[George Parr]

Alan Marsh is unable to understand any form of secular mindset and cannot rationally interpret the position(s) of progressive Christians. This is because he is eaten up with dogmatic assumptions and self-importance on a grand scale. He also makes the mistake of over-estimating the relevance of Anglicanism in a wider social context and cannot clarify societal change expressed within his faith.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

George Parr, as portentous as ever, and missing the point as always.

The Christian ministry depends entirely on the Christian faith for its raison d'etre and those who serve as bishops do so not as Executives of a business but as a sacramental continuation of the Apostles' ministry.

Your touching faith in "progess" is entirely irrelevant to the question of what a bishop is. To apply the notion of discrimination to Christian ministry is like saying that Labour is breaking the law by not allowing Conservatives to stand for election as its MPs. Your arguments really are as childish as that.

[Margaret]

I concur with Stephen Marsden above; the issue is indeed very simple.

I have long since despaired of the spurious arguments about gender discrimination which are erroneous and miss the point completely. A couple of years ago Bishop John Broadhurst stated that members of Forward in Faith were frequently described as "a one cause group". By that, he meant that we were perceived to be obsessed with the women priests' agenda. He went on to affirm that we are indeed "a one cause group", that cause being "the right of Our Lord Jesus Christ to dictate the way His church is run." For those of us who oppose women's ordination to the priesthood, Dominical Authority is the central issue. I have read the books that have been published which seek to put forward the case for women's ordination. Each time I have hoped that I might read something that convinces me I am mistaken in my so-called "traditionalist" stance. Nothing I have read has spoken to me in the way that "Consecrated Women?" does. All the proponents' books are full of sentimental and sociological justifications, whereas "CW?" takes as its premise the authority of Holy Scripture (which, according to the canons of the Church of England "containeth all thing necessary for salvation")and demonstrates the wonderful and mysterious, divinely-inspired structuring of the Church with all its meaningful imagery that becomes quite lost in a gender-interchangeable Church. Society as a whole may view men and women as interchangeable but I utterly reject any suggestion that I and my husband are the same. We are not. We are equal - but that does not mean we are the same - and complementary. And I, for one, rejoice in being female and "different" - except perhaps when some of my fellow women suggest I'm barking mad for sharing views the views of those they inaccurately and unfairly term "misogynists." Not only am I proud to be a woman, as opposed to a man, I am grateful to be an intelligent, thinking person who through prayerful consideration can size up the evidence and hold an informed viewpoint.

An understanding of what we mean by "church" is paramount in considering women's ministry (or any other novelty). If the Church of England believes itself to be "The Church", full stop, then I suppose it can act unilaterally in major issues of faith and doctrine. If, however, it is viewed as but a small part of the wider Church, then it is not free to do just as it pleases. Every Sunday (and often between-times)I join in the "recitation" of the Nicene Creed, affirming my belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. That suggests to me that I am a member of a wider body than the church of my native land - a body that is supposed to be "One". Furthermore, I understand myself to belong to a Church of England that is both catholic and reformed. That I do not describe myself as Roman Catholic is neither here nor there really. When I go abroad I frequently have to worship in Roman Catholic churches since there is no Anglican church. Roman Catholics, of course, do not have the reverse problem and perhaps there is a lesson for us there!

I could go on, but what I wish to stress is that I hold a position I believe to be consonant with Holy Scripture and with the traditions of the universal church. I am a member of Jesus's flock and I do not think my Lord would countenance His pastors ejecting me from the place to which He called me ("I chose you; you did not choose me")in the interests of a secular-inspired (dare I say, from "across the pond"?) feminist, employment discrimination issue. What worth would new members of the flock have when so many would be frozen out?

Let the women have what they want - but to coin their phrase "not at any cost" - and by that I mean to those who hold to the Faith once delivered to the fathers and which is every bit as valid today as it was then.

May God's blessing be upon us all.

[Anglican Priest]

Dear Ruth

Thank you for the link to the Open Letter, of which I am a signatory.

I am surprised by the number of people whose signatures do not appear there, although they share the letter's sentiments. Those of us who do appear there represent, at a rough approximation, less than half of those concerned.

We have no wish to stop the new Measure going forward. All we ask is that the process is not designed to deny us a continuing place in the Church to which we have always belonged.

The parameters for what is needed are well known and understood. But will the majority in the Synod have regard to those of us who have remained loyal Anglicans throughout? Or has the intention been all along to exclude us from the future of our Church?

[Michael Stevens]

Ruth thank you yet again for your calm, intelligent and measured reporting here.
Writing from NZ, where these issues seem far less problematic in the CoE all I can do is wonder what will come next.

[Robert Ian Williams]

There will be no mass exodus, of either laity or clergy. Yes some will go..but without compensation, they will stay, like the good old Vicar of Bray.

Imagine a third province with a GAFCONIAN sword hanging over the Church of England...that is why it will be rejected by the Synod.

[Fr, Van Windsor]

This is another example of why Archbishop Williams is very much the person to be the Archbishop of Canterbury at this time---God's choice. Yet another faction that demands complete acknowledgement of their whims and desires, saying, "cater to me, and me only." O.K., fine, let the ABC just say "enough is enough!" Where then will they be? With Gafcon leadership? So they can have all of the millions of disaffected, hate filled, conservatives (golly, and I am considered VERY conservative). So that they can dissolve in the acid of their own hatreds. Williams gives them legitimacy, why else would they not break completely from him? While we will still have our historic Catholic roots,our often messy relationships, Conservatives and liberals fighting it out to the glory of God, in hopes that Jesus' love will save us all---as though His death and Resurrection were not enough! I now have changed my mind. I have no problem with a Communion 1/2 the size. Lead on Dr. Williams. lead on! Then, again, that may be the Scotch talking....

[George Parr]

Alan, your example is ridiculous. This is not about parallels involving the role of bishops, as business administrators, although it almost certainly applies. This is about homophobia, discrimination and claimed exemptions by Anglicans within society, arrived at through notions of 'faith'.

Your posts demonstrate a massive disjunction between the various roles played out by Anglicans and their relevance within the society they continually criticise.

Rational thinking is possibly the only way out of the unholy mess these people are in. Since you and they are driven to solve issues via the unravelling of 2000 years of narrative, based on nothing more than assumption and a wish list, that is extremely unlikely. The sacramental continuation of the Apostles' ministry (itself documented as an exercise in rejection and selection) may be something that exercises you - to which you are certainly entitled. But it is becoming increasingly clear that since the only societal input from some Anglicans pivots on shouting their own absolutist terms, it is certainly not a mandate for maintaining a privileged position within any state apparatus.

Are you really saying that these squabbling bishops are exemplars of leadership, tolerance and equalitarianism? They are steering a rudderless ship in a sea of pointless bias surely? Some of us do not want these sort of influences in our political and education systems.

Amazingly Alan, this is not all about you. Your minor denouncement of 'progress' is appropriately selfish, negative and is an unmissable signifier of the problems and despair contained within the larger picture. Since the 'debate' about these issues remains unresolved over a very long time, the Anglican leadership retains very little credibility in the wider sphere.

[Stuart Hartill]

At this rate will there be be more splinters of the Anglican Church than there were of the cross in places of pilgrimage during the middle ages?
I shouldn't laugh but, really, Monty Python and the Judean People's Front comes to mind.

[George Parr]

Margaret, women are obviously very different from men in various physiological respects. However women surgeons (say) are not different from male surgeons in their abilities, aspirations or expectations. Society, in this example, and nearly all others, probably regards men and women as wholly interchageable.

Since it is this respect that the Christian argument is about, would you impose conditions whilst patronisingly letting women have 'what they want' if what they wanted was to be surgeons instead of bishops?

You clearly emphasise that you are an informed, intelligent thinking person, rejoicing in your gender difference. What criteria has defined the need for you to underline that? Might it be a subliminal reflection to the second-class status placed upon women institutionally by Anglicanism and heavily reinforced by some members?

It is too simplistic to tie-in the shifts over gender and sexuality in the Anglican church, with some monolithic secular agenda, particularly as no such agenda exists. In doing so you renounce all criteria outside of what you imagine the demons of secularism to be, and deny the open-minded members of your church their right to think freely. This is all about you isn't it? Are you really so insecure that this one issue of gender threatens the 'wonderful and mysterious divinely-inspired structuring of the church' or, for you, dissolves its 'meaningful imagery'. Is that all it takes?

The church has undergone many changes over time, changes that have always reflected the progressive nature of human knowledge and endeavour. One 'secular' wish might be for the Anglican Church to carry on wholly unmolested providing,
like all other self-interest groups, it abides by the laws of the wider democratic society it exists in, and forms no part in its governance, educational or social policies.

[Jay]

Looks like some folks are using the same-sex issue to roll back a number of their hidden agendas.

This is another example of why Archbishop Williams is very much the person to be the Archbishop of Canterbury at this time

Amen! Williams has a well of patience and wisdom that few others possess. Can you imagine Akinola as Archbishop? Can't imagien how many pieces the Church would have split into!

[Alistair]

Once they're done with gays and women, are the bishops going to start picketing fish restaurants to stop them serving shellfish, another abomination before the Lord acording to the OT?

[Malcolm+]

Alan, both sides played a predictive numbers game in the early 90s. Proponents of the ordination of women lowballed the number (though I personally never saw anything quite so low as 35) while opponents highballed the number (I recall seeing claims of several thousand - though usually more in the 1-2,000 range).

At the end of the day, the number (without access to the precise figures, I'll happily accept your 450) was significantly higher than the one prediction and significantly lower than the other.

It is disengenuous, though, to suggest that it was only the oe side which was playing the numbers game.

[Esmari]

Let’s for a moment ignore the political motivations of these honourable gentlemen, as well as any motivations out of fear and consider whether there are any legitimate reasons for keeping women “in their place”.

To me it is quite clear that there is no problem with a woman being a teacher, prophet or priest in a church. There are enough examples in the Bible. Most of the fundamentalists’ opinions are based on Paul’s comments – all taken out of context.

Such arguments would be focused on a ritual issue, in any event, not a moral one. I would argue that none of the ritual issues are binding on other times and cultures.

What we should be concerned about are bearing fruit, loving one another and keeping our lives free from moral transgressions.
http://www.dieperdinge.com/commentary.html

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Malcolm, I was at the General Synod debate when the impossibly low number of 35 was pronounced by one of the leading architects of the legislation. I won't embarrass him by naming him here.

I won't predict numbers, but I think I can safely say that unless the concerns of traditionalists are met, the Church of England will have a very serious problem on its hands - one which is entirely avoidable, while still legislating to allow women to become bishops in the CofE.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I do wish George Parr would apply a little Tacitean rigour to his prose style. Amid all the verbiage, his cry seems to be "rationalism".

Sadly, there is no evidence of it in the waffle which he regularly spouts about rational thinking. While claiming to desire freedom of speech and association, he is determined to deny it to Christians.

[Margaret]

George - It is not about patronisingly letting women have what they want. The church has always seen its orders as threefold rather than as three discrete roles (I am not going into the permanent diaconate – a valuable and much under-used role, in my opinion – here). It goes without saying that if someone can be ordained priest they cannot be excluded from being consecrated bishop. Since the C of E has acted unilaterally in ordaining women to the priesthood and believes that the short reception period is over then they must move to allow women to become bishops. That is entirely logical and what has been agreed. The question now is only about provision for what might simplistically be termed “conscientious objectors,” one-time valued members of the Established Church. However, if you want me to use secular parallels, then if I were an MP not sharing the party line on particular issues, even on a major issue, such as reducing the time limit for abortion, for example, for which party members are being cajoled into towing the party line, I would not want to compromise my integrity by acting against my conscience. That is how I stand in relation to women priests – I cannot accept their ministry and it is absolutely not on discriminatory grounds as I was at pains to stress. I repeat, it is not a question about “women” but about Dominical Authority. This is why the argument about substituting “Jew” or “black” for women is erroneous. It is not the same thing at all. It is a fallacious argument.

You ask what criteria define my need to endorse my femininity and define my attributes. Well, precisely the existence of those fellow women who are proponents of women’s ordination who express incredulity that there are women who cannot accept women’s priestly ministry. I do not have second-class status in the church at all. I am where God called me to be – I do nothing under sufferance, I attend worship at other churches (fruits of a mongrel church background and a desire to build ecumenical relations), take an active interest in other cultures and religions, and my faith shapes my life. That I have considerable contact with EU and other nationals who are Roman Catholics and Orthodox, plus my church background, probably informs my attitude to the need for us to retrace our steps and pursue unity within the wider church relentlessly – not for the sake of a one-size-fits-all Christianity, but for a visible unity that reflects Our Lord's will; one that truly embraces difference but is clear on fundamental truths. Within that vision there may be room one day for the church universal to move for the admission of women to priestly ministry. It would not then be an experiment in a relatively small island church, but something seen clearly as divinely driven. In the meantime, I don’t want to be patronised myself by the simplistic arguments I have encountered all too often from women. For example, “when I see a man presiding at the altar I see only half of humanity; I am not represented,” or words to that effect. That, to me, seems facile – like saying that if I only receive the bread at the Eucharist I only get half the grace. Personally, I don’t share this woman’s view. Of course, I accept that’s how she feels, but I am not persuaded that it is in itself a valid reason for change.

I have nothing against secular agendas, per se, but my perception of the priesthood, one shared by a good many, is that it is not a “job”, and therefore, it is difficult to apply employment law to it. Furthermore, homogeneity, be it of food, shops in our shopping centres, fashion, sex, etc. is not something that automatically enlivens society – frequently quite the opposite. We once traded to achieve variety – now all we get is the same everywhere we go. If we translate the notion of homogeneity from the temporal to the spiritual we may well find the same sense of dullness pervades the atmosphere.

I think if I addressed any more of your points George (you’re not the George Parr of dual personality seen on Rory Bremner, are you??? – if so, you’ve made me laugh aloud again!!) I might find myself thinking that there are good reasons for my becoming suspicious of men’s motivations after all! Only joking!

By the way, perhaps I am so happy in my female skin because both my parents – who had just one child, late in life – so wanted a daughter, rather than a son – even though my grandmother used to tell them before my birth that they’d have to take what they got. Furthermore, whilst I have always found that men applauded my intelligence, there have been occasions when, sadly, women have told me they feel threatened by it. To quote one: “You’re far too clever for us.” A bit sad that, I think.

Peace be with you!

Margaret

[Louisa Shepherd]

Let us be clear that the argument against women bishops SHOULD NOT be hijacked as a feminist/sexist issue! It is a theological argument deeply rooted in scripture which should not be misinterpreted by putting a 'modern day' slant on it. The bottom line is this, if God had intended women to lead in the church he would have appointed 12 female disciples NOT 12 male disciples as clearly stated in the Bible.

[Stephen Marsden]

The 450 leavers post-1992 is fairly accurate, but it is necessary to grasp why it was so much lower than the 1 - 2,000 prediction - which was simply that the C of E, through the Act of Synod and the flying bishops, made adequate provision so that so many were enabled to remain. Take away that provision and they will have to go! So the numbers this time (unless Synod does the decent thing) will be much higher.

Another point. The ones who left received periodic payments under the Financial Provisions Measure, which cost the Church, if memory serves, £26M. If there is to be no ecclesial provision this time AND no financial provision, that would be nothing short of scandalous. Every new leaver would have been cheated out of a financial package which they could have taken between 1993 and 2003, seduced into staying by the promise of ecclesial integrity. How cynical would that be?

[Ruth Gledhill]

To keep the debate going here and rather than start a new post, I've updated this entry with two new links to columns in today's paper, a leader urging the Archbishop to stand up to traditionalists, and a column from George Walden arguing he must come out of the closet as a liberal, or resign.

[Edwin Barnes]

Traditionalist clergy have remained in the C of E becasue they were promised an 'honoured place' and were told that their belief that women could not be priests was a perfectly proper opinion for Anglicans to hold. If with the consecration of women to the episcopate those promises are broken, and priests are compelled to accept women as bishops or leave, does that not amount to 'constructive dismissal'? And isn't the amount the courts would award to those thus dismissed from home and livelihood likely to be far higher than any compensation the church has ever paid until now? If theology does not persuade General Synod, perhaps economics will. Yrs &c Edwin Barnes

[George Parr]

Dear Marsh, I apologise unreservedly for usurping your rusty throne through my prose style. I realise that verbiage and empty waffle is your province.

Whilst Tacitus was known for sparkling rhetoric and boldness in his use of wit, sadly neither acomplishment can reasonably be applied to you.

[George Parr]

Margaret, interesting post from you in answer to my rather mischievous ramblings. To be clear, I would point out that any substitution of 'black' or 'Jew' for 'women' was not in my post - although I understand your point.

George Parr is an only son and his doting parents were overjoyed to have created a genius. His experience has been very much like your own. Whilst most women realise that he has formidable intelligence, men are usually overawed by it but, happily, are easily won over by his urbane modesty.

His one remaining goal in life is to be as clever as Dr Marsh...

[Anglican Priest]

Fortunately we do not rely at General Synod on the advice of the Times when making theological judgements for the Church of Jesus Christ. And it is somewhat unlikely that The Archbishop of Canterbury will do so either.

[George Parr]

Mr Barnes, most of your unreasonable compatriots are yelling loudly that normative business practices and secular management strategies are wholly divorced from the refined atmosphere of the appointment of clerics which, of course, cannot be seen as merely another job...

[Fr Mark]

If you are all arguing about the clergy who went from the C of E to Rome at the time of the first women priests,remember that more than 10% of them later came back (after having accepted the compensation!).

[Daniel Lloyd]

No theological arguments from either (or any) side are going to change anyone's mind on the question of the ordination of women. The camps are entrenched and the ditches are dug. So, there is little use in wheeling out theological rationale for or against what traditionalists want.

The whole point of the clergy letter is not "if you don't do this, we'll leave": rather it's "we want to stay, and this is what we need." Talk of extended and well thought-out provision acting to "enshrine schism in law" is precisely the wrong way of looking at it. Enshrining schism in law would mean setting up a pay-off fund, as was done after '92. What proper provision would, in fact, do would be to enable as many people to stay within the same body as is possible. A larger, impaired communion must be closer to Christ's command that "they may all be one" than a smaller one entirely convinced of its own righteousness.

Proper provision wouldn't mean the CofE coming out with anything new and "un-Anglican". All it would do would be to underline a commitment to the language of tolerance, inclusivity and perpetuity, as Stephen Marsden has outlined already. Non-geographically contiguous dioceses have always been part of the CofE's structure, as a glance at any old map will show you, and as a cursory examination of the way in which prisons and hospitals relate to the surrounding ecclesiastical area will demonstrate.

I'm an ordinand in training. I've offered my life to the Church, which has said not only that she assents to my calling, but that I may train and, God willing, minister despite holding a minority view. The particular manifestation of the Body of Christ which is the Church of England has formed me, has assured me that I am a "loyal Anglican", and has up until now provided a structure within which I am able to remain one. The admission of women to the canonical episcopate need not change that, and, if we want to play the "what would our Suffering Lord say to that?" game, I'd imagine he'd weep more were there those who couldn't in conscience remain than were they, despite disagreements, allowed to do so.

[Giles Pinnock]

The final paragraph of today's Times leader (03/07/08) describes traditionalists / conservatives as 'deeply unappealing' by their 'narrowness, self-righteousness and arrogance'.

In a recent radio appearance with me (Richard Bacon Show, Radio 5 Live, Tues July 1st), Christina Rees of WATCH and GRAS fame, questioned the validity of the list of signatories to the letter to the Archbishops on the grounds that 40% of them are retired - that the vast majority of that 40% are still active, ministering on their pensions – effectively free of charge to the CofE – when most retirees would be expecting to be pruning their roses – does not seem to cut any ice with Christina.

I found myself wondering what their great crime was that they should be deprived of their voice in the present crisis - was it that they are old or that they are male, or because they have the temerity not to collude in the secular-liberal project at whose altar worship the proponents of the ordination of women and the promotion of lesbigay pan- and trans-sexualism.

Those of us who do not accept these things do so out of humility in the face of 2,000 years of the Church - Catholic and Orthodox - doing its theology a lot more rigorously and faithfully than the CofE bothers to do it today.

In Christina Rees' ageist and sexist attitude to retired male clergy who are daft enough to disagree with her, and in the more general liberal mindset that has it that God set the one holy catholic and apostolic Church up wrong and it is for the General Synod of the Church of England to administer the corrective, there is a liberal-protestant narrow-mindedness, arrogance and self-righteousness that is indeed deeply unappealing.

But the liberals would joyfully have us hold that the Holy Spirit has at last had a change of heart and decided to conform Himself to 20th/21st Century secular revisionism. How fortunate for the Holy Spirit that there are western liberals to guide Him into all truth – and there was me thinking it was supposed to be the other way round.

[Stephen Marsden]

Ruth

What a grumpy leader! (A sort of cross between Christina Rees and Anthony Howard, on a bad day.) Thank God that ++Rowan is far too wise to take any notice of it!

Edwin Barnes could be spot on, of course. I see elsewhere that the 1,300 clergy have between them 12,300 odd years of service left between them. Try multiplying that by the current national minimum stipend and you might get an idea of the sort of bargain a purge could represent - er, a snip at just £240,000,000!

[George Parr]

Louisa, of course he would have! Much in the same way that if he had not wanted homosexuals to be in the world he would never have created them, so they are either SINNERS or MUST have come from somewhere else - Mars possibly. So taking your example to its conclusion then, God has made a significant statement here. He has given us a sign. Women are second-class citizens within the schema of his church. It must be run by men - in perpetuity.

No wonder 5thC BCE prescient Greeks sharply defined the oikos from the polis, with women enjoying the same status as slaves and taking no part in the public sphere. Tragic really Medea! Heaven forbid that any open-minded Christians should put a 'modern slant' on these things!

[Gill James]

It's all so simple as Stephen points out. We are loyal Anglicans asking that promises are honoured. It must be structural provision which we can work with - a code of practice will not do! The new dioceses option is the simple and very Anglican, So go on General Synod. Adopt this Anglican way of generousity and justice wholeheartedly and with grace we will all be able to work togther to the furtherance of the kingdom. Fail to take such an action and we will all be revisiting this issue tiresomely often.

[J Pearce]

Again, please, will somebody point out where exactly in the Bible that it says women are forbidden from senior clerical roles within the Church.

Much obliged.

[Malcolm+]

Alan, to be clear, I wasn't questioing that someone had used a number as low as 35, but merely saying that I had not heard so low a number. I am quite willing to believe you that it was used.

You are certainly correct that the conscience provisions served to keep the departing numbers down. Arguably though, the fact that there was financial compensation for those who departed anyway likely had the opposite effect - perhaps to a greater or lesser degree.

In the present circumstance, the lack of a conscience provision would likely push the numbers up, while the absence of compensation will push the other way.

At the end of the day, it is likely that the campaign will be marked on both sides by people inflating or deflating the likely number of departures, based on their own perspective / agenda.

All that said, I find the idea of no conscience provision at all to be counterproductive, but the idea of an alternate province to be a profoundly misguided approach.

[Kate]

"I do not have second-class status in the church at all. I am where God called me to be ...

Furthermore, whilst I have always found that men applauded my intelligence, there have been occasions when, sadly, women have told me they feel threatened by it. To quote one: “You’re far too clever for us.” A bit sad that, I think." (MARGARET)

Sad indeed! I too find myself in awe of an "intelligence" that offers personal opinion i.e. 'I do not have second-class status ..." and the inference: "I am where God called me to be", as a premise on which argument can be based and logical conclusions drawn.

Personal opinion is simply that. It is meaningless to any other than the person holding it. The chief concern of logic is how the truth of a given proposition is connected with the truth of another. So, Margaret 'believes' she is not 'second class' despite all evidence that, within the orthodox, she clearly is not, as a woman, 'fit' for clerical office. Cosy! And certainly pleasing to all those "men" applauding her "intelligence" but logically absurd.

The basic definition of an argument: it infers a conclusion from one or more premises. Margaret's 'inference' from her personal opinion is that she is where 'God placed' her! More personal opinion. Proof please?

If one or more of said premises is invalid or incapable of proof then the argument is flawed ergo, the conclusion is equally flawed.

In which case the patronising verbosity addressed to George Parr exhibits only smug grandiosity.

One suspects "women" for whom Margaret is “... far too clever..” have, in the face of such opinionated smugness, resorted to kindly irony!

Pay no attention to me. I am equally 'in awe' of the hate-filled slanderers, the homophobes, the misogynists and the medievalists, prolific here, who wish to 'reform' MY Church in their own anti-enlightenment image.

The historical Glory of Anglicanism has been its ability to embrace the many. The abomination of the 'reformers' is their compulsive obsessive need to control and impose fundamentalist mediocrity on that dappled beauty.

I have no doubt that our Lord, Jesus Christ the observant Jew who should have been well-married at 32 but instead, hung out with a select group of men, was devoted to his mother and adored by female followers, would, today, be denounced by GAFCON as 'suspect'. Certainly 'not one of us'!

[J Pearce]

Mr Pinnock,

"The final paragraph of today's Times leader (03/07/08) describes traditionalists / conservatives as 'deeply unappealing' by their 'narrowness, self-righteousness and arrogance'."

Spot on. I am assuming you count yourself as part of that group. I pity you.

Christina Rees is absolutely correct. You are not. God did not "set up the Church wrong", it was the power hungry theocrats who usurped the organisation for their own ends, which have created this towering monument to medievalism and codified inhumanity. It never ceases to amaze me how people in this day and age - the aeging male rump of the Church, specifically - fail to elucidate the difference between what a Universal Creator would want and what has actually been delievered by a sexist, homophobic patriarchy.

I can only assume, therefore, that theology and its study is simply conduit for mysoginist elitism. The proof is the reactionary dribblings of your good self and the likes of Dr Marsh, et al. Theology has to be the least "educational", educational vocation I have ever encountered, if the results are the pitifully spiteful and intellectually vacuous bilge we witness on these pages.

There is nothing wrong in fighting repression, wherever it exists. The Church is a byword for repressive male hierarchy. Lets not fool ourselves with moral relativism, enjoyed by the likes of yourself when it suits your purpose. You and your ilk are being told to get your act together, because you wallow in the comfort of historical patronage, protecting your grotesque privileges by using the figleaf of medievalist theological beauracracy.

This is no longer acceptable today, in the same way that slavery is not. The bottom line is that the religious sexism and homophobia you peddle is uacceptable in a civilised society. Therefore, by supporting it, you are by definition uncivilised. At least the Africans have the excuse of war-torn, starvation riven third world societies. You have no such recourse.

Can I humbly suggest, Mr Pinnock, that if you and the other aeging male sexists who wish to continue wallowing in medievalist irrelevance, do not like the way this country is evolving, perhaps you might emigrate to a suitably comforting environment. I hear Nigeria is good at this time of year.

[Margaret]

Firstly, in my opinion (I acknowledge the limits of the validity of personal opinion) my intelligence is nothing out of the ordinary at all. The comment I cited was not made in a religious context at all but a work environment where women abounded, virtually to the total exclusion of men and in which some of the more insecure women disliked any constructive ideas coming from anyone other than themselves. I – and several other colleagues – found our ideas were used later once someone higher up “had had the idea”. Spontaneously, of course. So be it!

But that’s not what this blog is about. You ask for proof of my own claims to truth in my life. Well, obviously, only I can experience what is true for me. Faith in itself is not rational. We affirm the mystery of Faith in the Eucharist – Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again. But explain it? Justify it? We believe that heaven descends to earth at the Eucharist and Christ is truly present. Explain and justify that. Holy Scripture tells us that at Emmaus Jesus broke the bread and the disciples recognized him. But that does not explain the how and the why and so on. We either believe it or we don’t (“I believe Lord; help Thou my unbelief”). Attempts to explain the mystery of Faith don’t work. Likewise, attempts to articulate what we know and experience to be true in our lives are doomed to failure. Nevertheless, that is no reason for us not to attempt to understand what it is given to us to understand, or not to stand up for our experience. I don’t have a letter from God detailing his plans for me that I can show you – all I can offer is what I have experienced to be true in my life. No amount of you telling me that I am a second-class citizen in the church will alter my experience of being a first-class citizen.

Have you heard the one about the lifeguard on the beach? A fim crew were filming on a busy beach. The camera pans to a lifeguard sitting in his chair then out to sea. Suddenly there’s a commotion as a swimmer is seen to be in difficulty some way from the shore. The lifeguard spots what’s happening, jumps down from his chair, runs into the sea and strikes out strongly to where the swimmer is fighting to stay afloat. Just before he gets to her she disappears beneath the waves. The lifeguard duck-dives to try and find her. The crowd on the beach wait with baited breath. Several minutes elapse. There is no sign of the swimmer or the lifeguard. The onlookers begin to disperse, puzzling to each other how this could have happened. Lifeguards save people’s lives, don’t they – they don’t die themselves in the process, do they? Suddenly the camera pans back to the empty lifeguard’s chair. On it is a board with something written on it. The camera zooms in. It reads “SHE’S SAFE IN MY HANDS.” (source: RF Capon – I think in “The Foolishness of Preaching: Proclaiming the Gospel against the Wisdom of the World.”)

Not logical is it? Thanks be to God.

[Margaret]

The debate in Synod on the Manchester Report takes place on Monday afternoon. Perhaps all of us - whatever our perspective on ths issue - could unite in prayer for some or all of the time the debate is on, even if our personal commitmentss mean we can only achieve a prayerful awareness of the matter?

[Kate]

"Firstly, in my opinion ... my intelligence is nothing out of the ordinary at all.... not made in a religious context at all but a work environment" (Margaret)

A somewhat irrelevant self-aggrandising anecdote then! "God, I thank Thee that I am not like other (wo)men ... I tell you ... everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18.10-14)

I think in instigating this (sacred/secular) confusion, you continue to be a little confused. I do not ask you to "explain" or "justify" anything, I do not relegate you to second-class citizenship; I merely ask for 'proof' in that you cite Dominical Authority for your opinion on women priests but offer no reference (text please). I can't find it!

Re. homogeneity: nothing to do with secularism but precisely what the 'reformers' of GAFCON and fellow-travellers seek - a rigid, exclusive sectarianism of intellectual mediocrity.

Historical Anglicanism rejects the sectarian ideal that churches are for like-minded "saints" who agree about each others' virtue, or enlightenment, or any agenda other than that of the Liturgy, the 39 Articles, scripture, the Tradition and the living application of reason.

You make a great error in dismissing with such profound 'gratitude' the application of reason/logic. God inspired us with minds; human reason takes account of, and participates in, the discovery of all truth whether sacred, secular, scientific, medical, philosophical or any other discipline. The prerequisite for the use of reason in matters of faith is humility before God. This certainly does not mean a closed or narrow mind but one capable of rationally considering the findings of all disciplines which enhance understanding of the human condition.

[lydia]

I m lydia from Myanmar as being women minnister for 20 year ago. The church men minister unaccept women work and even make dicision for church leader. I felt bad to say my stories . How can i defend by myself free to minnitry among men?

Thanks
Lydia

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Oh dearie, dearie me - we're at it again, as the A. said to the B. Verily, verily, when the cat's away, the mice will play (no
lack of respect intended to those ladies desirous of donning a dog-collar or the modern fashionable equivalent of a Tudor ruff !). I have been following these debates with great interest and a very heavy heart.

Ladies young and old, of every condition and socal status (married, virgins, widows, nuns, prostitutes, queens, as much saints as sinners) have always been, are now and - if God so ordains - will continue to be gladly accepted as full participant members of the Church.

Misogyny is quite unknown in the ancient Church of East and West as founded by Christ. Christ Himself, although showing all due love and respect to ladies at His time, did NOT appoint any of them as Apostles into whose hands the future of the Church was entrusted. The early Apostolic Church - to its great credit - appointed deaconesses to serve the various Christian communities, and provisions were opportunely made for ladies to form religious communities or to serve the Church as faithful members of the unprofessed laity. I have heard many good sermons preached by well-qualified lady theologians, and have received Communion from the hands of lady Lay Readers/Lady Lay Ministers in the Anglican and Roman Churches the length and breadth of Latin America: There is no problem there, and I was certainly not alone in receiving the elements (consecrated by a male priest). Ladies can be good administrators, teachers etc., but they can't be ordained priests or bishops.

The attributes of priests (presbyters) and bishops are quite clearly defined in the N.T., and there is absolutely no need to "feminise" or "liberalise" those requisites just in order to pay lip service to present-day "pressure groups and their trendy policies".

From a strictly practical point of view, those individuals who indulge in homosexual activities are not able to propagate their own sub-species so, given enough time, they will become extinct of their own volition (refined progressive elimination of the unnaturally unfit, might be a good way to paraphrase Darwin on the survival of the fittest as an aspect of evolution).

When the body of St. Thomas-à-Beckett was laid in state after his murder in Canterbury Cathedral, contemporary chroniclers at the time reported seeing a procession of lice adandoning his dead body. God forbid that such similar massive ectoparasitic emigrations should afflict any of the Anglican leaders who manage to in remain communion with the possible "revitalised" See of Canterbury as it may exist after this process is concluded: body lice - quite aside from their nuisance value - can act as mechanical vectors in the transmission of the aetiological agents of some very nasty viral, rickettsial and bacterial infections. In such an avent, strict fumigation procedures would become necessary in the interests of Public Health worldwide.

PAX VOBISCUM.