Dragged kicking and screaming – the Church has sort of voted for women bishops. Hurrah!
If the Church had wanted to preserve its tradition of male dominance – then fine (well not fine) – but it should have given up the 26 places for Bishops of the Church of England in the Lords: we shouldn’t hand over a wedge of seats in our Parliament and say “men only”.
So – from the brink – the Church creaks into the 21st century. I’m glad that they rejected the second class (for women) bishops and all the other equivocations that would have been all things to all men (literally).
I don’t think we’re quite there yet – but I did heave a sigh of relief that the vote went through. There are enough issues that the Church could get involved in in a helpful and constructive way. Their eternal obsession to keep women in their place and homosexuals at bay has no place in the modern world. No-one said change was easy – but it is necessary.
Lynne Featherstone 
“There are enough issues that the Church could get involved in in a helpful and constructive way”I think its worth pointing out that in a thousand different ways, with schools, soup kitchens, advice centres, refuges, charities etc the Church already does get involved!And of course, a big hooray for the synod passing the women bishops legislation!
Hello Lynne,
I struggle to see how non Christians think they can really comment on the deep theological issues involved in women bishops or gay priests. The case for women in church leadership has divided many great theologians, but the church’s priority is to serve God, not to please the Liberal Democrats! As for gay priests, gay sex, NOT BEING GAY is clearly proscribed in the Bible and as such it would be hypocritical for the church to have gay priests. Morality has nothing to do with the calendar but Christians have and continue to play a large part in British society, many indeed consider Britain to be a Christian country.. whatever that means. Therefore, I undersand you’re happy that the CofE General Synod has voted in favour of moving towards women bishops, but our first concern is to love and obey God, and then we must love our neighbours as ourselves… this we can do with our without women Bishops, but I hope that all those who seek the priesthood do so with a desire to serve God and their neighbour, not to make secular politics points.
Please let me clarify, celibate gay or unmarried vicars, priests, youth workers, pastors, bishops, archbishops.. great! 🙂 When the church when it conforms to the morals of non Christians doesnt’ attract anyone.. which is why liberal churches are usually empty and the Bible believing ones growing!! 🙂
Just come across this but have to endorse James E Pennington’s second comment – like many others I was liable to misinterpret the first.
My objection to the first so-called “bishop” appointed by the American Episcopalians was that a man with either one of her two disqualifications would have been disbarred.
I think that feminists should require equal standards of women as they do of men – sadly this is rarely the case: so when I meet a lady who clearly has a vocation to the priesthood, I have to struggle against the general assumption that she has been accepted just because she is female.
Lynne – have you ever been involved in the selection of a curate?
Finally – the Church of England tries to be a theocracy. Your “male dominance” is a joke in poor taste as it is likely to be taken as referring to the C of E aversion to the devotion to the Virgin Mary, common among Roman Catholics.
Lynn: I can understand as a feminist why you have responded so positively to this and that is your right. But I do want you to realise that not all men opposed to female clergy are chauvanists. Some will be, but others arent. In fact there are both men and women on both sides of the debate. (Anne Widdecombe left the CoE over the issue) I’m a Lib Dem voting pro-feminist man. I think we desperately need more women in parliament and I support the OBJECT charter.(women are people, not sex objects) But I am convinced women serving in certain roles in a church context is unbiblical, and unless someone can convince me otherwise I will stick with my conviction however unpopular it may be or what I am called.
I do however agree with you over Bishops in the Lords. I would replace this with 26 faith representives chosen from the different faith groups with the number of reps elected related to the support for each group. So you could have 8 Anglican Bishops, 5 Catholic Bishops, 4 people from the Muslim Council of Britain, 6 people from the Humanist society, 1 from the Methodist church, 4 from the Evangelical Alliance, 2 Hindus, 2 Buddhists and maybe even Jedi Knight!
I wish you good luck in your post, but please dont legalise prostitution as it sends the message that buying and selling women is ok!