Rachel Treweek Saray Mullally 2a
Church of England

Canon Rosie Harper on the "good girl guides" who have been consecrated bishop

 

“We haven’t had anyone from left field,” said the left-field Canon Rosie Harper to the left-field BBC, as two wonderful, gifted women were consecrated bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Canterbury Cathedral. “It would be unkind to say they’ll all be good girl guides – that would be betraying it,” she clarified, while subtly betraying these women by sowing the very innuendo of good-girl-guidiness. “But there is a feeling of that,” she needled. “Mostly, they’re all married to clergy and the temptation to play the boys’ game in order to survive will be very great until there’s a much larger number of people.”

So these bishops, says Rosie Harper, are not “good girl guides”, but “there is a feeling of that”. Feelings are real, if they aren’t always truth. Presumably this feeling emanates from the hearts of one or two left-field canons, priests and/or chaplains, and one or two like-minded laity.

It is unfortunate that Canon Harper decided to sound a sour F# minor chord while the rest of the Church was rejoicing and praising God with a choral symphony in D major. There is a time for everything, and a joyous moment of episcopal consecration is not a time for a vicar to screech, “Look at me!”

The left-field Canon Rosie Harper is chaplain to the left-field Bishop of Buckingham, the Rt Rev’d Dr Alan Wilson, who is doubtless encouraging (if not lobbying for) his left-field chaplain to succeed him when he retires (an occasion which must be imminent), to ensure a left-field succession in Buckingham, since Stockport, Hull, Gloucester, Crediton, Taunton and Aston have all manifestly (according to Canon Harper) gone to women from right field, who are “mostly married to clergy”.

Is it being married to clergy which makes them right field? Presumably they don’t all vote for David Cameron and aren’t too enthralled by Iain Duncan Smith or Michael Gove, so she can’t mean ‘right’ in a party political sense. Isn’t it sufficient that one of the bishops was a speech therapist and the other a nurse in the NHS? Might that make them left field? Doesn’t it at least adequately establish a foundation of ministry based in real life and human strife?

In fact, only three of these bishops are married to clergy.* That’s three out of six, which is half, or 50%, which isn’t “mostly”; it’s equally, which surely must be a virtuous theology for Canon Rosie Harper, whose whole theo-political mission is to preach equality wherever it may be sought/found/inculcated/imposed – even for the elderly, sick or disabled who may want expedited equality with the dead.

But apparently these women bishops are not only right field; they are tarrying in their gender vocation to be different. According to Rosie Harper, women bishops “must find a new way of being a bishop and not merely become a female version“. This is an immutable creed for Canon Harper because male bishops “function like little boys lost, having to posture that they know what they are doing. Yet often they never get round to doing what they know in their hearts is the right thing..  (They) find it impossible to escape the gentlemen’s club culture until they retire”.

Gosh.

Is that belief a prerequisite for left-field episcopology? Do women not “posture”? Is it only men who give the impression of knowing what they’re doing while not having a clue? Is it only men who are prone to a “club culture”? Isn’t this all rather.. well, unpleasantly sexist? Can you imagine a male vicar saying that women bishops function like lost little girls, paying more attention to their lipstick than the content of their sermons; posturing and preening in the Ladies’ while delving into their handbags for divine inspiration?

Rosie Harper wants the new Bishop of Oxford to be a woman, hopefully not just because she has already prepared her CV and it is a superior diocesan position compared to the suffragan bishopric of Buckingham. Intriguingly, the CNC is having problems discerning the right candidate.

Canon Harper said: “We’ve got to look to the future… obviously, you look for the best person for the job but having made the decision to have women bishops, the Church has to enact it not just leave it on the back burner. The face of the Church of England… is exclusively male and that needs to change very quickly.”

May not the best person for the job be a “good girl guide”? You know, someone who takes an oath of canonical obedience and sticks to it? Someone who understands the meaning of submission to authority and grasps the imperative of an episcopal polity which is best served by unity. Or is that to ‘clubby’?

The Church of England isn’t “exclusively male”, as it happens. In fact, according to a Tearfund survey of 2007, Churchgoing in the UK, women constitute 65% and men 35% of regular attendees. True, that’s across all denominations, but the ratio of women to men is not likely to be in different in the CofE. According to the Telegraph, more women flock to the Church: “..the lack of men in the Church has been attributed to the rise of women in its public roles. The increasing ‘feminisation’, particularly of the Church of England since the first women were ordained as priests in 1994, is said to be off-putting for men.”

Whether or not ‘feminsation’ has any basis in reliable research is moot, but there is a feeling of that:

Not many have been brave enough to say publicly what this supposed ‘feminisation’ consists of. A few though have pointed to what they perceive as the increasingly emotional interpretation of Church practise in the hands of women – their sense that the Christian life has become a bit too touchy-feely – and that men are being repelled by the lack of engagement with masculine themes. I have even heard it argued that women have a sentimentalised concept of God who is increasingly described as ‘loving’ rather than ‘just’, ‘tender’ rather than ‘righteous,’ not to mention the fact that He occasionally becomes a She.

..For others the ‘feminisation’ of the Church is simply a question of personnel – the sheer number of women entering the priesthood (with female ordinands now outnumbering male) is rendering the institution a girls club that men cannot relate to.

These are complex and nuanced matters of ecclesiology and feminist theology. But perhaps by “face of the Church of England” Rosie Harper refers to its leaders, which are obviously predominantly male because.. well, until recently, the Church followed Scripture and tradition and perpetuated the notions and oppressions of patriarchy. Since there are now more female ordinands than male, perhaps by ‘face’ she alludes more specifically to the ‘head’, ie the Episcopate.

Yet hasn’t the “exclusively male” face of the Church of England been complemented by right-field women bishops? Or isn’t that sufficiently complementary? Must this exclusively right-field female episcopacy of “good girl guides” (or the feeling thereof) now be complemented by left-field women? And how, precisely, is that being defined?

Is it ‘left field’ to demur from Scripture, tradition and episcopal authority? For example, the official position of the Church of England vis-à-vis ‘Assisted Suicide‘ is unequivocal:

The Church of England cannot support Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill.. Patient safety, protection of the vulnerable and respect for the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship are central to the Church of England’s concerns about any proposal to change the law. Our position on the current Bill before parliament is also consistent with the approach taken by the Archbishops’ Council, House of Bishops and with successive resolutions of the General Synod.

Is is ‘left field’ to ride roughshod over this and tell members of the House of Lords in Parliament that it is their moral and Christian duty to support the Bill? In her official capacity as a minister of the Church and chaplain to a bishop, Rosie Harper told the assembles peers:

Let me clarify the bottom line. This legislation does not require anyone to do anything they do not believe in, in their own lives, but if you vote against it, you personally are requiring other people to suffer extreme agony on behalf of your own conscience. That is neither moral or Christian.

If this censorious and judgmental spirit is left field, perhaps the Lord prefers to bless the “good girl guides” with greater responsibility and spiritual authority because they have been faithful in the small things and have honoured their oaths of allegiance. Authority in the Church community requires discipline, wisdom and discernment, because when decisions are taken of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’, those who minister are acting corporately as God’s agents in the world. Where two or three male bishops are gathered, Jesus is right there in their club, manifesting a superabundance of divine mercy. Where five or six female bishops are gathered, Jesus is among them, too – even in the right field; even if they’re married to clergy.

*Correction: it transpires that five of these bishops are married to clergy, which is 83%, which is indeed “most” by a good margin. Sloppy, hasty research. No excuse. Apologies to Canon Harper. The only bishop not to have a vicar-husband is the Rt Rev’d Sarah Mullally DBE, who is probably not ‘left field’ because she is a dame.

  • alternative_perspective

    How is anyone with even the slightest commitment to orthodox Christian principles supposed to submit to the authority of such people?

    And when will the faithful: evangelicals, mainstream and anglo-catholics get off their backsides and realign themselves with the global Anglican movement and allow the increasingly wayward CoE to consume itself in petty ideologies and political infighting…

  • Malcolm Smith

    The feminisation of the Church…”

    I actually wrote about this myself, so I shall quote only one part of a longer essay:

    “Women have never had a problem with the patriarchal structure of the church. The problem has always been to attract male heads of families, to make them understand that church is not merely for women and children. Anyone who thinks this will be achieved by making the church leadership feminine has a lot to learn about human nature.
    Our society has reached the sorry pass where it needs to have explained to them the facts of human nature which previous generations understood instinctively. Certain things are hard-wired to our genes, going back to the days when men were hunters and women were gatherers. In those days the man who went hunting with a group of male buddies brought back more meat, and thus raised more children, than the one who did it by himself or, worse still, took his wife along with him. The people who organize the Men’s Shed movement and those who made the old “buddy” movies know more about male bonding than the politically correct opinion mongers of today.”

    Read more about it at:

    http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au /2015/02/womens-ordination.html

  • Anton

    St Paul said that an episkopos should be a “man of one woman” – 1 Timothy 3:2, in literal translation. What more is there to say? (To liberals: by what criteria do you accept the scriptures about the crucifixion yet deny those about church polity?)

    • Broadwood

      It seems to me that Paul is describing the ideal church as being led by the head of a Godly family.
      So, yes, I think that unequivocally means a male at the head, but the witness of the whole family is important (he goes on to talk about children), because the church stands as the family of God, and the bishop’s family as an exemplar. The wife is not just a bystander, therefore.
      Modern employment practice is way too individualistic for this, and the appointment of women as bishops spectacularly fails to get it either. It’s not a male-female competition, it’s about community!

      • Anton

        God’s curse on Eve and womanhood, following the Fall, includes this (Genesis 3:16): “You will desire-your-way [TSHUQAH] with your husband, but he will master [MASHAL] you.” This much mistranslated phrase means that the woman will desire to dominate the man, but will fail. In the Hebrew original, the same construction appears shortly afterwards in Genesis 4:7 when God says to Cain, “Sin desires-its-way [TSHUQAH] with you, but you must master [MASHAL] it.” The two words appear together nowhere else. So the Fall is the start of the ‘battle of the sexes’.

        What did God intend, before the Fall took place? Eve was made for Adam (as a helper: Gen 2:18), from Adam (2:21-2). Paul says that this implies male authority: “The head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman is man… for man did not come from woman, but woman from man” (1 Cor 11:3&8). So God intends that authority shall be male. That is why he reveals himself to us as our Father.

        God cursed the key role of woman, child-bearing (Genesis 3:16), and the key role of man, namely providing for the family (which only he can do because caring for a house full of young children is a fulltime job for the woman) – Genesis 3:17-19. What does St Paul say about the duties of husband and wife? Ephesians 5:22&25: “Wives, obey your husbands as you would the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church… Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” That love is agapē – self-sacrificial love, beyond eros which the couple obviously enjoy and share. Here Paul appeals to the dawn of man and to man’s relationship to God. This has nothing to do with ancient Middle Eastern culture, Greek culture, or modern secular culture.

        The relationship between husband and wife can be abused. Men can throw their weight about as bullies, abusing their power. Such behaviour is usually obvious. Women can try to usurp male authority in the home. That is usually more subtle. In Genesis 3:16 God tells us that these things will surely happen, as a result of the Fall. When a man bullies, it becomes harder for the woman to obey. When a woman usurps, it becomes harder for the man to lead the family and show sacrificial love for them. A vicious circle of blame and misbehaviour is set up all too easily. In Christian marriage, a man must crucify his inner bully, and a woman must crucify her inner usurper (in Pauline terminology).

        • Dominic Stockford

          Thank you. Well explained. I do try to share this, but find liberal peeps start screaming all sorts of nasty things at me when I do….

        • Broadwood

          Excellent analysis, Anton. Quite so!
          Canon Rosie’s words chilled me, as she thinks she is fit to be an example to others, but she clearly does not understand these principles at all.
          The heart of the redemption of man is the redemption of human relationships and hence the family. If a bishop is to be of any use whatever to his flock he must be able to show this, however imperfectly, in his own life.

  • Arden Forester

    As one who does not recognise the sacramental validity of this but does recognise the lawfulness of it, the task now is to maintain as much as possible the unity of Christians in England. Rosie Harper hails from the militant wing and it would be unfortunate if she and others sought to be difficult with regard those who retain and maintain Traditional church teaching. We saw it in TEC where Jane Dixon, a female prelate, forced herself onto a church. Others have followed suit in similar vein.

    I may wish this had not come to pass but neither do I wish to deny those who feel this is right for them. My only request is, don’t ask me to agree against my beliefs and conscience.

    • ‘As one who does not recognise the sacramental validity of this but does recognise the lawfulness of it, the task now is to maintain as much as possible the unity of Christians in England.’

      You need to ask yourself first, “What is a Christian.” The problem of the C of E is that by its very nature it welcomes all and sundry into its ranks.
      If you wish to preserve the unity of the C of E, just agree with everything Ms Harper wants and there won’t be any trouble (this side of the Return of Christ). If you want to preserve the unity of Christians, you need to come out of the C of E and be separate.

      • Arden Forester

        I hardly see how that is unifying. Separation hardly enhances one flock. We need to find a way to be united yet realising there is difference. My beef with Ms Harper is that she appears to want to subjugate others now that she has made advancements as she sees it. Being in charge of Oxford would put her at odds with the very core of the Oxford Movement. I hope I’m wrong but she has put out only what I see as confrontational vibes.

        • Martin

          Arden

          Separation enhances the real flock, the rest are not relevant, not being part of the Church.

        • dannybhoy

          Except that you cannot be unequally yoked with people who don’t acknowledge or live according to our Lord’s teaching.
          The yoke will chafe and politics are then used as salve.

          In our little country church the ‘evangelicals’ are a very small group. However there is enough goodwill and love to keep us all together, so we don’t need church politics; just forbearance!

        • Arden,
          I do understand how difficult it is to leave a church where one has been all one’s life.
          However, may I ask you to consider prayerfully 2 Corinthians 6:14-18?

  • Anton

    Rev Prof Leslie Francis found a few years ago that men in CoE orders typically had feminine personality profiles and vice-versa.

    Have a look at the first few women bishops:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33606593

  • preacher

    IMO, it’s a case of too many chiefs & not enough indians. The scramble for the top ‘jobs’ has become just that in some peoples point of view.

    The idea of calling, or even vocation has seemingly gone out of the window, even the language displays the attitude to the ‘job’. How can anyone take seriously the teaching of mature spiritual truth from someone who uses terms like ” Good Girl Guides ” ?.

    What the Church needs today is strong, spiritually mature men & women with a love of God & the courage to preach the gospel. Not politically motivated children with a desire to bring political ideologies into the fellowship of believers.

    Back to the ‘Wendy House’ with your dolls & dressing up box Rosie, come back in a few years & apply for a vocation.

  • Dominic Stockford

    It’s not only Laudato Si that is “shrill, unclear, naive and unconvincing….”

  • Si_Hollett

    For the record, Canon Rosie Harper is married to a clergyman – the Rev Tim Harper, Rector of the Parish of Amersham and Coleshill.

  • Goodness, Rosie has started her campaign for Alan’s job rather early. Is he planning an early exit from this valley of tears? And my, doesn’t she harp on … and on … and on. God help us and save us from ‘left-field’ women (of both sexes, or none).

  • David

    I believe that there is a Swiss study that shows that if a father attends church regularly, with or without his wife, there is a statistically much higher chance that their children will grow up as worshipping Christians, than if only the mother, the wife attends church regularly.
    Yet if local churches are increasingly becoming unconsciously feminised by an increasing percentage of female leadership, how will young families follow in their parents footsteps, as worshipping Christians ?
    This aligns with my experience in the C of E where it is the male led churches, with a strong Biblical message that grow, attracting whole families with young children and teenagers, whilst the liberal churches wither, their pews containing a decreasing number of the elderly.

    • GKoH

      The demographic characteristics of the linguistic and religious groups in Switzerland” by Werner Haug and Phillipe Warner of the Federal Statistical Office, Neuchatel. It appears in Volume 2 ofPopulation Studies No. 31, a book titled The Demographic Characteristics of National Minorities in Certain European States, edited by Werner Haug and others, published by the Council of Europe Directorate General III, Social Cohesion, Strasbourg, January 2000.

      • David

        Location identified !
        Thank you.

    • Andrew Price

      Join the Independent Evangelicals. We’re growing. Faithful to scripture.

      • David

        I may. It is an option.
        Certainly I sense a time of decision, of a parting of ways approaching.
        But God moves at a very different speed to me, which is rapid, so I need to listen very carefully to his guidance. Certainly I’ll not compromise my belief in Scripture.

    • sarky

      Didnt work for me!!!

    • dannybhoy

      http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-05-024-v
      Don’t know if it’s true though!
      Certainly before my own conversion us boys preferred staying home with Dad to listen to his boyhood tales rather than going to church with Mum.
      I have (subjectively) noticed amongst my Christian friends with families that where the husband is head of home (with the wife’s full backing) those families seem happiest.

      No husband worth his salt takes his wife for granted or fails to praise her at every opportunity.

    • Coniston
      • David

        Thank you. I was aware of those references before.
        Shows what attracts men though doesn’t it !

    • Jonathan Goode

      As a NHS chaplain in a mental health trust, I’m free to take my children to church at weekends when my wife’s often elsewhere presiding and preaching. I’m happy to receive the sacraments from a man or a woman, as a sign of the communion we all share as Christians. In terms of leadership and vision, I’ve found bad and good in all kinds of clergy, gender doesn’t seem to have anything to do with it. I sometimes wish the church was more feminine (Christ’s Bride?) if feminine qualities are stereotypically seen as being able to listen and nurture.
      Anyway, what’s all this about manly strong Biblical messages? Jesus described himself as wanting to shelter and protect the people of Jerusalem like a mother hen gathers her brood (Matt 22.37)

      • David

        You quote one of the few exceptions, to the usual Biblical depictions of all the three persons of the Holy Trinity, as being in some sense, presented to us theologically, as male. So The Bride of Christ, The Church, is female.

        For almost 2000 years the Church has understood Scripture’s instructions for leadership within the Church, in a certain way. Indeed most of the worldwide global Church still does.

        But if some in the west are resolved to allow parts of the Protestant Church to be led by secular concepts of “equality”, and not Scripture and Tradition, then as with the earlier confusions, many of which were in the Patristic Period, time will test which set of ideas are schismatic, in error, and which authentic and continuing.

      • Anton

        Johnny B. Goode!

  • Martin

    Pretty good evidence that Rosie Harper lost it years ago. Of course there aren’t any women bishops, scripture forbids it so they don’t exist. There may be some going around claiming to be such but they have no authority, much like those ‘gay’ persons claiming to married to each other aren’t.

    Trouble with the CoE is that there are so many people, going around claiming they are something in the CoE, much like Rosie Harper, when they aren’t actually in God’s church.

    The answer, of course, is for you who are in Christ’s Church to abandon the CoE and join a Christian church.

    • Linus

      All is still loopy in Cloud Cuckoo Land, I see.

      God (or to call him by his given name, Martin) has spoken and all the “pretend” bishops and “pretend” married couples have been smitten from the face of the earth.

      Only we’re all still here. And God in his incarnation as Martin is powerless to alter that fact.

      Looks like he isn’t omnipotent after all.

      Now there’s a shock!

      • The Explorer

        Allah will take care of all those in your second paragraph in due course. And many more besides: including all those who contribute to this blog.

        • Linus

          Are we witnessing your conversion from the worship of one tribal idol to another?

          I suppose it’s a logical progression. When the impotence of being a Christian (with all that forgiveness and cheek turning) gets too much for you, why not opt for a little jihad, vengeance and retribution instead?

          • The Explorer

            We are not. But the regime will be a little different when it is being run as Canterbury Mosque. (And to predict something is not to posit its desirability.)

          • Linus

            Predictions that take the form of rushing about squawking “the sky is falling!” in an attempt to scare others into supporting your position aren’t predictions so much as cynical exercises in manipulation. Their success depends on two things: the plausibility of the predicted event; and the plausibility of the doomsayer announcing it.

            You fail to convince on both counts. The impression we’re left with is of someone with a enormous chip on his shoulder who hates Muslims so much he wants to turn everyone against them. The Nazis used similar tactics when maligning the Jews in the early 1930s. How sad to see someone adopting their tactics in this day and age.

          • The Explorer

            “Squawk! The sky is falling! The sky is…” THUD!

          • Linus

            Knocked yourself out on your own stupidity, eh? Or just so deranged that you can’t stay upright?

            One hopes the fall will knock some sense into you…

          • The Explorer

            And one hopes the Fall will knock some sense into YOU. But then, I’m talking about a different kind of Fall.

          • Linus

            Oooh a Fall with a capital F. eh?

            Don’t tell me you’ve been reading Peter F. Hamilton’s latest science fiction masterpiece! The man has an inventive mind, but what utter tosh he writes!

            Still, at least it shows an open mind on your part, as well as a willingness to update your ancient myths with new ideas. There’s nothing in Hamilton’s œuvre more implausible than a resurrection, a talking ass and a demon possessed pig, so the two stories should meld together just fine.

            But I’m sorry to disappoint you! I don’t bleed blue. Not for any reason at all. My blood is just as red as yours and I’ve never been “eggsumed”…

            Not talking about that kind of Fall? Well who knows what kind of syncretic mixture of various myths and stories you really adhere to? I know there’s Jesus in there somewhere, but all the traces of Zeus and Râ and Mithradates and Superman and Gandalf the Grey are muddling up the picture.

            So no Fall for me. No space monsters or biblical bogeymen either. Just the mundane reality of life, the universe and everything. Too boring for you, I know. But that’s the way it is, I’m afraid.

          • The Explorer

            Afraid I’ve never read Peter F. Hamilton. More to the point, I’ve never even heard of him. So my mind is less open than you so generously suggested.
            You don’t bleed blue? And here’s me thinking you were nearly royalty.
            Don’t worry if you don’t know what fall I’m talking about: ignorance of it could be a consequence of it.

          • The Explorer

            My position. Do you mean my Christianity, or my view on non-British Muslim brides?

            If you mean ‘Islam is growing, become a Christian!’ then, no. If you mean there should be a review of welfare payments for multiple wives acquired abroad, then, yes. If you mean eight children by four wives should be treated as one family rather than four families for welfare payments, then, yes.

          • Anton

            “You fail to convince on both counts.”

            Isn’t there a word missing from that sentence? It should read “You fail to convince me on both counts.” Which is a statement about you as much as about The Explorer’s arguments.

            Also you make the common error of supposing that hating Muslims is the same as hating Islam. Not so. Some Christians regard Muslims as Islam’s biggest victims, no matter how many Christians ISIS slaughters.

          • Linus

            Your intended victims probably don’t mind sharing coffee with you because they realise you’re not really responsible for the nonsense you spout.

            A mixture of instability, gullibility and indoctrination meant you never really stood a chance, did you?

            I’m sure those whom you would like to incarcerate for their heinous crimes against you and your divine right to dictate to others how they live recognize how damaged you are and pity you for it.

            They also realise you’re no threat, so they can afford to let you gibber away quietly in a corner knowing that you represent no danger.

            That’s what you do with incurables. Help them to stagger through life as best they can.

          • Anton

            You make a common mistake of some others here, of supposing you know what goes on in the minds of others to cause them to write and act as they do. But actually you don’t.

          • Linus

            No, but I can hazard a good guess, and their nods and winks and amused smiles are just eloquent as words.

            A clue for you: when they roll their eyes as you praise de Lawd, they aren’t gazing heavenwards in expectation of a holy vision. They’re engaged in quite a different sort of reflection…

          • Anton

            “their nods and winks and amused smiles are just eloquent as words”

            You’ve seen my friends do that?

            I don’t worship God out loud when I’m with my gay or other secular friends.

          • Linus

            What? You hide your light under a bushel and don’t proclaim your faith in Jayzuzz Chraaast to the whole world?

            But your Christian duty is to teach us all the error of our ways! Some Christian you turned out to be!

            St. Paul must be spinning in his grave. Is this what his fiery brand of zealotry has come to?

            I’m very disappointed. What’s the point of a silent Christian? If they won’t gibber and rant and condemn everyone around them to hellfire and damnation, there’s no fun in them at all. And as fun is their only redeeming characteristic…

          • Anton

            Worship is not the same as evangelism. The former is an activity to be shared among believers, the latter an invitation to nonbelievers. Be assured that I don’t neglect either of these.

          • Linus

            If you don’t neglect evangelism, why aren’t you more insistent with these friends of yours? Why don’t you demand that they convert, and threaten them with hellfire when they laugh at you? It’s your Christian duty! If you give up on them, they’ll burn in hell and it will be all your fault.

            Bad Christian! If you were a Catholic, your penance would be exemplary. Repent forthwith and make a novena to Notre-Dame des Frappadingues-et-Forcenés, the patroness of religious obsessives. Only then will your heinous sin of envangelo-shirking be forgiven.

          • Anton

            It is inconsistent with the Bible to demand that people convert. The New Testament requires that it be a free choice, and it’s obvious why: you might, if the the culture is on your side, be able to enforce conformity, but never an inner faith. Moreover it is a waste of time to threaten people with hellfire who don’t believe in it. The warnings about it hell in the Bible are mainly to believers in God and are there as a warning against backsliding.

            If you want to know how evangelism should (rather than shouldn’t) be done, by all means read the New Testament.

          • The Explorer

            Linus,

            On 28 June, when the US Supreme Court signed SSM into US law, ISIS militants released a video of themselves “celebrating” SSM by throwing four gay men to their deaths from the roof of a building.

            That’s Syria. But I saw a militant on a British march calling for sharia as the solution to Britain’s social problems: no drug issues, no slags, no gays. There are now 26 sharia courts in Britain.

          • Linus

            More fool the British for allowing sharia courts on their territory.

            Of course they exist here too, but only as a voluntary and unofficial way of settling disputes in the Muslim community. Their pronouncements are not legally binding and they have no jurisdiction over criminal cases.

            In that capacity they’re no worse than those American TV shows like “Judge Judy”. They can’t sentence anyone to prison or any other form of punishment, so they won’t be coming to throw me off a building.

            Intimating that they will is populist nonsense. You really are a terrible demagogue, aren’t you?

          • The Explorer

            I think that’s the situation in Britain, too. If I remember right, that’s what the protest march was about: for sharia to apply to everybody in the areas where they are located (If there are any non-Muslims) and thus to be legally binding. A tiny problem agreed, but a growing one; and one that didn’t exist at all thirty years ago.

          • …. been turning your cheek lately, Linus?

          • The Explorer

            I think Martin had overtaken you and the Inspector in the MHBL stakes. A comment like that might just put you back at the top of the leader board.

          • Happy Jack has his reputation to uphold.

          • Powerdaddy

            You are certainly holding your reputation with comments like that.
            Leave Linus’s cheek alone, they are all spoken for. . .

          • Pubcrawler

            Do you have inside knowledge about that?

          • Powerdaddy

            Don’t you start with the double entendres. ……..

          • Pubcrawler

            ‘Double’? Never knowingly that sophisticated…

          • Powerdaddy

            That’s what Jack says, I don’t believe him either. …..

          • carl jacobs

            Jack! >:-(

            I am reaching for my iron rod, Jack.

          • Little Black Censored

            When Linus joins in, the discussion takes a turn for the worse; just watch.

      • dannybhoy

        Who poked you awake monsieur Frenchie?!
        I trust all is well with you?

      • Martin

        Linus

        It isn’t down to me, the requirements for a bishop are laid down in Scripture:

        The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
        I Timothy 3:1-7 [ESV]

        This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
        Titus 1:5-9 [ESV]

        The word translated bishop is here translated as elder, so the requirement remains the same. I don’t see many of the females who claim to be bishops being the husband of one wife.

        Of course, since marriage is between one man and one woman there is clear evidence that a ‘marriage’ between two men or two women is clearly a pretend marriage.

        • sarky

          Sorry Martin but I can’t take you seriously. I have just seen a you tube video of a twitter exchange you had in which you clearly stated that homosexuality is wrong, but incest is ok because it is between male and female as god intended. You cant beat a bit of f***ed up christian morality.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            I don’t recall ever saying that, but then many people make YouTube videos when they’ve lost the argument on Twitter.

          • sarky

            Google your full name, then scroll down to the ‘this twit’ video. It’s all there.

          • Anton

            Was he talking about sex between Adam and Eve’s children?

          • sarky

            Watch for yourself.

          • Anton

            I would but you didn’t give enough information.

          • sarky

            Google ‘martin yirrell’ then scroll down to the ‘this twit’ you tube video.

          • Anton

            You might have saved me time and answered my question “Yes”!

          • Anton

            By the way, the guy contending with Martin fell for Martin’s trap about Hezekiah 6. He said he’d read the Bible 3 times but there is no Book of Hezekiah in it. (H was a king of Israel.)

          • Martin

            Sarky

            Ah yes, that idiot. He didn’t seem to realise that incest between siblings is not directly immoral but homosexuality is.

            As in, it was OK for Abel to marry a sister, but not a brother, since their genetic load was vastly less than when Moses gave the law to Israel. Today, incest between siblings is likely to result in genetic harm to the child.

            Of course, generational incest and that between child and parents spouse was always forbidden.

            Perhaps you have sufficient understanding to follow that.

          • sarky

            Oh I understand alright, but it’s still incredibly sick. But I suppose you have to justify it to give credence to your myth that two people populated the earth.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            So explain why, in non emotive terms, is it incredibly sick. On the other hand, look at homosexuality, where the relationship is solely for the purpose of sexual pleasure. A man and a woman complement each other, they are different, think and work in different ways. Two persons of the same sex do not complement each other, it is like looking at yourself in the mirror. A sort of self gratification. Now that is sick.

          • sarky

            You don’t know any gay people do you Martin?

          • Martin

            Sarky

            There are no gay people, just sexual sinners and I’ve known a few of those.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Yup, spot on Martin.

    • Jonathan Goode

      Last time I checked, there were no bishops mentioned in the Scriptures. Period. And anyway…. I always thought Jesus made it pretty clear that it was God’s business to determine who is or isn’t in the Kingdom, not you. You may also want to bear in mind something else Jesus said (Matt 7.3-5)

      • Darter Noster

        πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. δεῖ οὗν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν,…

        The saying is sure: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, married only once, temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher…

        1 Timothy 3 1-2, in Greek and as translated in the NRSV, the standard English translation for theology.

        • The Explorer

          “Married only once” seems clear enough until the difficulties of language seep out. Does it mean:
          1. Must be married:? (Celibates need not apply)
          2. Cannot -re-marry if wife dies?
          3. Cannot have been divorced?
          4. Cannot be a practising polygamist?
          5. Cannot have been a polygamist before conversion?

          • It’s widely accepted this was referring to adulterous relationships and/or polygamist relationships.

          • Malcolm Smith

            Greek, like many other languages, makes no distinction between “man” and “husband” and “woman” and “wife”. I would translate “a man of one woman” as “a one woman man”. I think what St Paul was getting to was that a bishop or priest must not have a roving eye. Polygamy wasn’t an issue in that society, and it is unlikely he objected to a widower taking a second wife, though he would probably reject a man who divorced the wife of his youth.
            In any case, the operative word is “man”.

          • The Explorer

            Very clear. Thank you.

        • Anton

          Very interpretive translation. The Greek says be must be a “man of one woman”.

          • Darter Noster

            It couldn’t really mean anything other than ‘married only once’ though; what’s unclear in both languages, as the Explorer points out, is whether it’s an injunction against divorce, polygamy or both…

      • Martin

        Jonathan

        The word translated bishop in the AV is more correctly translated elder and is the one with spiritual oversight of the local church. It is quite clear from Scripture that such a role is not open to women.

        In order to determine who is to be baptised/admitted to the church as a member a local congregation needs to distinguish those who are saved from those who are not. It’s called discernment. It also applies to appointing elders and other officers.

        Were you offering to remove a splinter from my eye?

        • Anton

          No, the word Presbyteros means Elder. Episkopos means Overseer. But some of us believe that these were the same set of guys within each congregation, and it is provable at Ephesus – see Acts 20.

          • Martin

            Anton

            You are perfectly correct, I’d agree, they were the same guys.

    • alternative_perspective

      Where will I go that is catholic and evangelical? That respects and upholds the sacraments and doesn’t reduce them to mere memorials?

      • Martin

        AP

        Why would you imagine the Lord’s Supper is other than a memorial? Baptism is a memorial too, of what God has done for the individual. I’m not sure what other sacrament you have in mind.

  • Jim Gourlay

    How are they “the husband of one wife” exactly? Or doesn’t that matter?

  • carl jacobs

    The Bosheviks it would seem are annoyed. Spoils are supposed to belong to the victor, but the Mensheviks and (worse) the Social Revolutionaries seem to be receiving all the new appointments as People’s Commisar. Who was it that lead the revolution in the first place? How can the Vanguard of the downtrodden ecclesial masses lead the church if it isn’t allowed to occupy its historic roll as Vanguard?

    Canon Harper wanted the advent of Women Bishops to herald a new theological dawn. The new bishops were supposed to manifest the ascendancy of the new theology in word and in estrogen. Alas for her, the powers that be were more concerned about prosaic concerns like money and membership. It’s not the first time that radicals have found themselves frustrated by institutionalists who want things to proceed at a measured and deliberate pace. The revolutionary wants to rip up the cobblestones, and get on with it.

    Eventually, the CoE will become radicalized and fulfill Canon Harper’s vision. But honestly, it’s hard to find people who care. The lack of conflict betrays a deep fracture. It’s when people stop arguing about ongoing disagreement that you have to worry. The absence of conflict means that members have surrendered their commitment to the organization. There is no longer any investment in its long-term well-being. They have turned their backs, and turned inward. The whole is reduced to a mass of atomized particles that hover in close proximity but no longer possess organic connection.

    One hundred old women will die, and five young women will take their place, The Bread will give way to Raisin Cakes, The Priestess will mediate between woman and Sophia. And no one will even notice that it has happened.

    • Carl, have you been secretly attending a creative writing course? This is not the writing of an engineer.

      • carl jacobs

        Jack

        I think it is common knowledge on this weblog that my writing is EXCEPTIONAL. It was only my natural American humility that allowed me to refuse the request by the National Archives to record my writing for posterity.

        • There was almost … almost … a touch of poetic imagery in that post. Engineers do not do poetry.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes we do. Here look. I wrote these:

            Follow the silver ribbon
            Where the shadows do not hide.
            There to seek the Marriage bed
            And free the blushing bride.

            OK, so it’s a riddle. But it’s a riddle in the form of a poem. And again.

            Impending doom! Disaster threatens
            You who stand within my power.
            Thou shalt ne’er escape my vengeance.
            Gaze upon thy final hour.

            Spite shall bear thee to damnation.
            Hellfire reaches for thy soul.
            Find no hope in all creation.
            Feel the flame that burns stone cold.

            Eh? Poetry! Now, I won’t tell you why I wrote those poems. If you knew the answer, you would probably use it against me. Best you don’t know. Suffice it to say the players had less trouble with my enigmatic couplets than I had hoped.

            Still. Poetry!

          • Hmm … the second one is rather morbid, Carl. As for the first, Jack’s mind is racing.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s not “morbid.” It’s dark and menacing and covered in despair. Actually, they are both dark and menacing.

            But that’s not the point. I have utterly refuted your contention, and you are simply trying to distract attention from that fact.

          • Were the poems writings for a Unitarian ecumenical service you attended with your daughter?
            Hmm … okay. Jack concedes you do “dark and menacing” rather well. Anyways, “soul” does not rhyme with “cold”. The beat and syllables are .. just wrong.

          • carl jacobs

            I never said I was a good poet. Poetry is hard. It takes skill and practice. One does not become a good poet by sitting down at a table to write a poem. But (if you might recall) you didn’t assert anything about good poetry in your original statement – which can currently be found passing through 4000 ft on its way to the ocean floor. You said:

            Engineers do not do poetry.

            In any case, my poor efforts are considerably better than the shlock produced by most “professional” poets these days.

            “soul” does not rhyme with “cold”.

            Close enough for gov’t work. And anyways. If Kipling can rhyme “an’ all” with “rational” then I can rhyme “cold” with “soul.”

          • Okay, so engineers occasionally do poor poetry. Poetry is the communication of feelings and ideas given emotional depth by the use of imagery, rhythm and harmony. Syllables and beat, Carl. Get these right and a lot can be forgiven.
            It was a Unitarian meeting, wasn’t it?

          • carl jacobs

            Nope. No Unitarian connection.

          • A men’s group to help you get in touch with your feminine nature?

          • carl jacobs

            Ummm … no. I don’t do the drum thing.

            And anyways. “Poor poetry” is kind of harsh. I was like 20 when I wrote those. Gimme a break.

          • Then take pen to paper and write something more mature.
            Umm …. 20? A marriage preparation class?

          • carl jacobs

            Nuh-uh

          • Compulsory English literature at University, then?

          • carl jacobs

            English Literature was not compulsory. I had to read a few of Shakespeare’s plays, and maybe a few of his (exceedingly dull) sonnets when I was in High School. I tried to read some P G Wodehouse once on a recommendation. Didn’t make it very far before I gave up the ghost.

          • One needs a sophisticated sense of humour for P G Wodehouse and an understanding of the English classes. As an American, you are disqualified on both counts.
            What could it be that first triggered this experimentation in poetry?

          • carl jacobs

            Jack.

            “Sophisticated sense of humor.” Yes, that’s a phrase for it. I could think of others.

            OK, I’ll take pity on you since I did this just to torment you. I knew you would react to his way.

            A looong time ago in a galaxy far far away, I briefly played Dungeons and Dragons. I created those poems for adventures that I ran. I gave up the game in short order because I couldn’t get past its pagan nature. That was a personal and not a universal judgment. Others may be able to handle it. I couldn’t.

          • Dungeons and Dragons? Good Lord, Carl. Jack is speechless …. almost.

          • alternative_perspective

            Humph..

          • Another engineer?

      • Dude

        Carl is the “Jethro Gibbs” of this blog. You must be “duckie”…..

        • carl jacobs

          But Ziva David is so much cooler. Couldn’t I be the … No, I really can’t, can I? 😉

          It has been years since I watched NCIS. I was quite distressed when they killed off Kate and feared they might have ruined the show by doing so. The character of Ziva more than allayed my fears.

          Tell me, are all Israeli women walking weapons of death?

          • Dude

            I’m not bothered about the current showing of NCIS , as they’ve not got ziva in them ! Thankfully both CBS action and channel five have got the earlier seasons on repeat (even better is they had one episode at 1 and an hour later the channel five episode is on, downside is I had to suffer fifteenth minutes of “neighbours”).

            But ” are all Israeli[Jewish] women walking weapons of death?”

            As I said above , Jewish women, alongside their careers, run the household, bring up our children in the faith and generally leave us dudes with the tasks of war and peace and doing more commandments (as women are more spiritual and also aren’t obligated to act on so many commandments as they are too busy ruling, ahem, sorry, running a house). But all I will say is that Jewish women generally and Israelis in particular are extremely feisty, because a lioness will always defend her cubs no matter the consequences : that’s is especially true of the orthodox/hasidic/haredi/sephardi….

          • LOL, we’re NOT fire breathing dragons….

  • educynic

    Ah the daily drip of feminist propaganda. Women are sufficiently different so that society will be so much better when they comprise half the bishops and company board members, but not so different that our army (perhaps even our football teams) might be weaker when so made up.
    Promoting the feminist agenda is legitimate. Not so the obverse. The Church of England will become a women’s club run by women.

    • Coniston

      The more women bishops (and priests) the fewer men will remain in the CofE.

      • dannybhoy

        You won’t even be able to retreat to the pub….

        • Pubcrawler

          Ahem. You just need to know the ‘right’ pub…

          • dannybhoy

            I wus dragged up near a large naval dockyard and in those days right up until the ’70’s there was a pub on every corner..
            I think there is a deliberate policy to eradicate these places of retreat and reflection…

          • Pubcrawler

            In my immediate territory there still is a pub on pretty much every street corner.
            But I very much appreciate that that’s unique even in this town.

      • The question is what character will the men who remain have?

        Will there come a time when the 50+ ‘gender’ descriptions become acceptable and male and female bishops will become a thing of the past?

        Transgenderism is the next ‘big’ issue after homosexual marriage is agreed.

        • Anton

          The 50+ categories are going to run aground on the shore of sport. For a long time there has been men’s teams and women’s teams. If those categories are nowadays deemed not to be exhaustive then you either have to have unisex teams or you have 50+ teams so as to prevent discrimination. Toilets are going unisex but sport never will, because the feminists won’t let it as it would put an end to women in sport.

        • The Explorer

          Agreed. ‘Don’t know if we’re coming or going,’ and ‘Don’t know if we’re Arthur or Martha’ is about to take on a whole new meaning.

        • The Explorer

          Here’s a nice conundrum: a woman who transgenders into a man, and then cross dresses as a woman. Not sure if it exists yet as a permutation, but it will.

          • Anton

            The headline in the Daily Mirror on April 12th 2014 was: My ex hubby is now my wife.

          • The Explorer

            That’s even better. The future is already upon us.

        • Martin

          HJ

          So you don’t think marriages between numbers other than two will be mooted? After all, there is no ‘twoness’ in a ‘gay’ marriage is there? Why not have marriage between three or more?

          • … why have marriage at all?

          • Pubcrawler

            The party and the presents, I guess…

          • Martin

            HJ

            What do you imagine is their aim?

          • It’s not their aim as most are sinners deluded by desire and evil. In Jack’s view, Satan’s aim is the destruction of family life. Family is where we first experience selfless love, learn right from wrong, encounter authority and discipline, and receive forgiveness . These gross parodies of family life are demonic.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Marriage is a picture of Christ’s relationship with His Church, of course Satan wishes to destroy that image.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Just as the TEC USA has done, and look at what is taking place over there. Watch out anyone with orthodox theology.

  • GKoH

    I’m more and more convinced that the structure of the family and the structure of the church are inherently intertwined. It’s disparaging, though, that few, if any, seem to view it that way or say as much. Makes one wonder if that is the truth, although, to me, it seems to be so.

    • Anton

      That can hardly be true as there have been differing family structures throughout history in cultures that have never heard of Christ. There’s a link between family stability and societal stability, though.

      • GKoH

        I’m referring to the concept of the picture of Christ and His church in the marriage of a man and a woman (and as a result their children) in conjunction with the various New Testament examples of, and teachings about, the church body and church structure – almost entirely familial terms – father, mother, brother, sister, children – and then on top of that, the concept of God as Father, God the Son, and we becoming sons of God, co-heirs with Christ, and then also the Old Testament dealing of God with one or more families as of central significance, and the dealing with those families. It strikes me that we see family, both physically and spiritually, as central to the whole Biblical message and concept of relationship with God, salvation, redemption, inheritance, and of course, our we are to relate to one another.

      • Father, mother, brothers and sisters…. Husband, wife, child ….

        The core of the imagery throughout Scripture. And with them go love, complementarity, selflessness, procreation, fidelity, justice, authority, discipline, punishment, duty, forgiveness …. and countless other values.

        This is why the modernist revisions of Scriptural text that remove ‘paternalistic’ and male/female concepts are so harmful. As the article says, it does feminise the Church and replaces rational content with emotion.

        • Anton

          Agreed.

          • *gasp*

            An up-vote and Jack will faint :o))

          • Anton

            You need not faint; I don’t vote here, either way.

    • Mungling

      You may find Saint John Paul II’s Theology of the Body interesting. One of the central teachings of that body of work focuses on that very sentiment.

      • Anton

        It seemed to me to be very deeply under the influence of Greek philosophy, no matter how much lip service was paid to the Hebraic viewpoint. I don’t consider that I learnt much valid theology of the human body from it but I gained a far better understanding of the man who did much to bring down the Iron Curtain.

  • dannybhoy

    There should be no room for politics in any Church. That may sound naive I know, but remember this?

    A Mother’s Request (Matthew 20>>
    20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    We are the Bride of Christ, we are the body of Christ on earth. When churches start acting like the world by manipulating and plotting and denigrating one another they are in serious trouble.

    Romans 12>
    9 “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honour. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit,[g] serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.”

    • That’s personal ambition and rivalry on display. And as that passage illustrates, men do it too. Women are slightly more skilled at it, in Jack’s long experience and adopt different strategies. The Old Testament illustrates this.

      There will always be politics in the Church. Tough decisions have to be made. The Jerusalem Council demonstrates the model. It’s when one surrenders the truth for the sake of personal ambition that the troubles begin.

      • dannybhoy

        Well as I said my view may be naive, but I cannot see how we as the Church can ever be seen as different when we employ the same tactics as the world.
        It’s not that there is no room for disagreement or dissent, but we should be doing so in honesty, humility and love, for the good of God’s Kingdom not our own.

  • Perhaps Canon Rosie Harper is a Presbyterian at heart?

    • carl jacobs

      No. No, she isn’t. She may be an ersatz whatever. But she is no Presbyterian.

  • Inspector General

    So, here we have the new ‘shepherds of men’. That man cannot abide being preached to by a woman is conveniently ignored in the now non-binary CoE. Sad really, the Inspector always appreciated the old concepts of ‘men’ and ‘women’. Sure some of you fine fellows who follow Cranmer feel the same way too.

    And there’s Rosie chomping at the bit too. “Over here, look at Me, ME!”. Such havoc she’ll wreak if they’re ever so foolish to make her a bishopette too. But then, it’s rather inevitable isn’t it. Even if the current group of imposters are traditionalists of a sort, sooner or later they will give a lift up to a feminist lefty euthanaser. That’s the sisterhood for you…

    • Busy Mum

      Some of the fine ‘fellowesses’ feel the same way too….women lording it over other women can lead to only one thing – the mother of all cat fights.
      It is quite frankly pathetic – I am filled wth pity for these women whose idea of ‘fulfillment’ involves playing at being men and whose idea of feminist triumph is not actually about attaining some sort of nebulous equality with men but rather, a superiority to other women.

      What real woman worth her salt wants to be preached to by another woman?

      • Inspector General

        No better encapsulated than with the interfering mother-in-law imposing on the new bride. Well, perhaps teenage daughter and mum…

  • Jonathan Goode

    I know Bishop Alison White, currently of Hull, and formerly of this diocese (Newcastle) and she is definitely not a girl guide. Perhaps Canon Rosie hasn’t ventured this far north to see for herself.

    • carl jacobs

      So is that a good thing or a bad thing? Should we therefore infer that she a full-throated revisionist in sheep’s clothing? Would Canon Harper be relieved if she only knew?

      • Jonathan Goode

        No, she’s her own person, with strongly held views, who has an excellent reputation as a pastor. Up here, Bishop Alison has a reputation of listening to other people’s points of view, rather than leaping in first with her own.

        • carl jacobs

          So what are those strongly held views?

          • Jack has learned the terms “pastor” and “listening” are frequently used by heretics progressives to imply those holding to traditional morals are uncaring and out of touch with people.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack. That was almost cynical. I am proud of you!

          • Jack made this discovery conversing with Americans who claim to be faithful Catholics. He has gone past cynicism. There is good reason why a former Pope described a brand American Catholicism, which wedded itself to American Exceptionalism, as a heresy.

          • grutchyngfysch

            My pastor listens to God 🙂

        • Anton

          Has she listened to St Paul’s point of view that an episkopos should be a man of one woman (1 Tim 3:2)?

          • The Explorer

            The argument tends to run that St Paul was entitled to his point of view, but that doesn’t make his view in any way binding. Christ was entitled to his point of view, but was a man of his time. God the Father needs to read Judith Butler and get up to speed. God the Mother has views that coincide with ours. (Well, she would, wouldn’t she, since we created her in our image?)

          • carl jacobs

            Anton, Anton, Anton

            Don’t you realize that Paul was a dippy chauvinist who was a prisoner of his age?

          • Anton

            Carl, I know you are writing satirically – but, as a serious reply, this is why when I quoted Paul’s chapter and verse lower down this thread I wrote the following addendum to liberals: by what criteria do you accept the scriptures about the crucifixion yet deny those about church polity?

          • carl jacobs

            It’s because we take Scripture seriously. We don’t practice bibliolatry. God gave us a brain and we use it. After all, the Scripture only becomes God’s word through our interaction with it.

        • Shadrach Fire

          No, she’s her own person, with strongly held views

          It would be prefered if she had strongly held Biblical views rather than being her own person.

        • Phil R

          We are still waiting to hear what the strongly held views actually are……

        • The Explorer

          Hitler had strongly-held views and was his own person (most of the time).

  • Tag

    Not sure if it’s important, but… which two of Libby Lane, Alison White, Rachel Treweek, Ruth Worsley and Anne Hollinghurst does the Archbishop believe are not married to clergy?

  • Mike Stallard

    Is “left field” the same as socialist? Or does it mean gay?
    Whichever it is, the article above reminds me a lot of a girls’ school, never mind the girl guides.
    The CoE is now Methodism in full fancy dress.

    • Anton

      And Methodism was once the serious end of the CoE.

    • It is rather bitchy, private school playground stuff, with a sprinkling of posh-tottie.

      • The Explorer

        I thought private school and posh tottie tended to be the same thing? But maybe all posh tottie goes to private school, but not everything at private school is posh tottie.

        • Jack has limited experience of young women who attended private schools. However, he has met plenty of “posh-tottie” who attended public education. It’s a mental attitude and affectation, in Jack’s experience, and dear Rosie’s got it in abundance.

  • Inspector General

    One expects those ladies will sit together at synod, or anywhere else they are going to meet for that matter. They do that, gals you know, go around in a bunch. It’s so if any man jumps one of their number, the rest will scratch his eyes out. Why do you think they love growing their nails? Basic human instinct survival skills inherent.

    It won’t be for long. About 10 years one would say…

    • *chuckle*

      In Essex they dance around white handbags gyrating and flaunting their bodies. It reminds one of witches dancing around cauldrons.

      Don’t suppose Girl Guides do this. Too refined and well behaved.

      • I don’t think they dance round their white handbags anymore HJ they’ve gone up market now!

  • Shadrach Fire

    As Professor Henry Higgins said in Pygmalion: Why can’t a woman be more like a man?

    Why do women have to be different? Why do they need to be a different sort of Bishop just because they are women. Surely in Christ we are all one, neither male nor female. The job to be done is the same so why all the fuss that they are women and have to be different.

    • Well they certainly all look very masculine!

    • dannybhoy

      The New Testament definition of a bishop is rather different from the one we see in the Catholic and Anglican churches.

      “In the New Testament, a bishop is a person who functions as a teaching leader among a local group of Christians. The Greek term episkapos
      has also been translated as “episcopal,” “elder,” “overseer,” or
      “pastor.” All refer to the same office and are therefore synonyms.”

      In the letter of St James chapter 5 it says,
      14 “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

      No mention there of a bishop as being a separate more elevated role.

      1 Timothy 3>
      ” The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

      Elders and Deacons comprise the leadership of a church.
      http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/elder/

      • Anton

        Absolutely. The word episkopos means simply “overseer” and it appears with that meaning in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament into Greek dating from a little before Jesus’s time, ie with no churchly overtones whatsoever.

        Originally there were multiple episkopoi in a congregation: see Acts 20:28 for the example of Ephesus.

  • bmudmai

    At my BAP (of which I was rejected by one lady taking a disliking to me…who made things up on the report too and caused quite a bit of outrage in the diocese) it was about 50/50 men and women.

    The women were all given en-suite rooms meanwhile the men were given communal bathrooms. (individual shower cubicles and toilet cubicles).

    Then my bap advisor who took a disliking to me was telling it wasn’t possible for me to text and have a conversation because ‘I’m a man’.

    All the females I’ve kept touch with have been accepted and equally the men other than myself. The 2 men who swore, get drunk, argued strongly for same-sex marriage etc. Were accepted. The one I would refuse to take communion from if he were to preside over it.

    It’s no wonder Rose gets away with it and the church is getting more women in than men.

    I’m not bitter about my decision, in some ways I’m pleased as it gives me more time to consider Anglicanism but boy did BAP open my eyes to how far fallen the Church has become.

    • Dude

      It’s true that women are better at multi tasking than men, which is why I don’t interfere in the woman’s role as head of the house or preparing for Shabbat.

      But what is this bap? I had thought it was an innuendo word play, but I assume it’s a religious rite of passage. Like a bris or a bar mitzvah?

      • Darter Noster

        Bishop’s Advisory Panel. It’s a series of workshops, interviews and written exercises over a few days, presided over by a panel of specially-trained ordained and lay Anglicans, designed to test candidates for ordination training in the Church of England and weed out the ones who believe in anything.

        • Dude

          I live and learn.

          • The Explorer

            You wouldn’t learn much from the ones they let through.

        • Anton

          I thought they let through the ones who believe in anything?

      • The Explorer

        Got me foxed, too. I’m subconsciously thinking soft bread roll.

        • William Lewis

          Sounds like that’s not too far from the mark.

          • You’re also thinking of baps and rolls?

          • William Lewis

            I really didn’t know what a BAP was, and I’m nominally Anglican, but from Darter’s description, something soft, white and stodgy seems somehow apposite. 🙂

          • Dude

            It’s all Greek to me. For example: what are rural deans?! And why are they rural in urban areas like Hendon?

          • William Lewis

            I’m afraid my ignorance on these matters is broad. I have resisted joining the local parish council where perhaps some of these procedures/roles would have been revealed but, alas, I know not.

          • Beats me bud, I’d better be off before Danny boy takes offence! Laters as my sister would say!

          • The Explorer

            When the Australians want to call something ‘Chumley’, they spell it C-H-U-M-L-E-Y. When the English want to call something ‘Chumley’ they spell it ‘Cholmondley’. When you want a dean in an urban area you call him/her a rural dean. SImples.

    • Phil R

      Interesting

  • Anne Peat

    I am afraid it is you who have your figures wrong. 5 out of the 6 ladies appointed as bishops so far are married to clergy. Perhaps you could apologise to Rosie Harper for berating her on this point when it is you who are in error?

    • Martin

      Anne

      Then those women should recognise the authority of their husbands over them.

      • Anne Peat

        Not the point I was making, Martin. Adrian was berating Rosie for getting her facts wrong about how many were married to clergy when it was he who had his facts wrong. Or does being male allow you to make 5 out of 6 not a majority in your world?

        • Martin

          Anne

          You miss my point, which was that since their husbands have authority over them then it creates a conundrum over who’s the real bishop.

          • The Explorer

            If the wife of a bishop is a lady bishop, will the husband of a bishop be a lady bishop too (as in linked to the bishop by marriage), or will a new category be needed? Let’s reflect the possibility of same-sex marriage bishops while we’re at it: after all, a same-sex male couple generally elect to call themselves both husbands.

          • Dude

            Presumably female bishops = bishopess and priest=priestess?

          • The Explorer

            Much too logical. After all. it’s sexist now to say ‘actress’ or ‘waitress’; although it isn’t sexist to say male nurse.
            Back in the days of Carol Doda and topless dancing, there were topless waitress bars, and the punters knew what they were getting. But a topless waiter bar: you wouldn’t know until you got inside whether you’d be served by a man or a woman. Mind you, if the modern ideal is 57 variants on a single gender, I guess it don’t much matter. Let’s just be served by a can of Heinz: it’s straight-sided, without confusing curves that could get you done for sexual harassment if you respond to them.

          • Dude

            I had no idea calling a woman “actress” and “waitress” actually WAS sexism! What a dinosaur I am (albeit a dinosaur with 5 sisters and numerous nieces and cousins)! If I say a babe is hot, that’s a completely a not sexual and not sexism complement! (Eg smooth derriere, great legs and wonderful baps, :but clearly not the Anglican version of baps! ) .Also had to look up Carol Dodo , hmmmm. Well before my time, dude. Now if you’d have mentioned the legend that was Twiggy or modern day mega babes, Taylor Swift, Bar Refaeli & Myleene Klass , I would have understood!

          • The Explorer

            Calling a woman a babe is sexist, but, you know, what, I wouldn’t worry about it. I make a point of asking for the waitress, calling an actress an actress, and a bird (another sexist word) a babe. I even don’t believe in the 57 genders.

          • Dude,

            “Calling a woman a babe is sexist”

            Sexist?! No,no , no it isn’t, couldn’t possibly be sexist! I call my better half “babe” all the time and she loves it! Even Maria the fit Cypriot says it’s a charmingly English phrase. I’m feeling quite depressed that a modern day “metro sexual” dedicated follower of fashion dude is cast as a villainous sexist. Besides what’s wrong with giving a complement to babes?

            But as to the 57 genders? Now that I also do not understand. I got my pen and did a brainstorming exercise. I got to 3 (male, female, androgynous). What are the other 54?

          • The Explorer

            What’s wrong with saying nice things to babes? Don’t asked me, I do it all the time. But I didn’t dream up all this nonsense. There’s a programme called ‘Loose Woman’. One time I watched it, they were debating whether women should report a scaffolding worker who yelled “Ello darlin'” to the police. The consensus was they rather liked being considered attractive enough to be yelled at.
            The genders. Here’s a sample only (A small dose of nonsense is enough). Where you see ‘G’ read ‘Gender’ Bigender, Cis, G Fluid , G Nonconforming, G Questioning, G Variant, G Queer, Intersex, Neutrois, Non-binary, Other, Pangelo, Transgender. As you can see, most of them are just different ways of saying the same thing.

          • Hi Sam

            No you are an absolute gentleman and you’re not sexist!

          • So long as you’re prepared to call Linus and the Inspector “babe” it’s cool. Jack will settle for “sweetheart” but not “babe”.
            You can Google the other 54 genders. Facebook has the list.

          • Sam

            Sweetheart,

            I must live in a bubble world : 54 other genders on Facebook….

          • Anton

            I sometimes call them priestesses. It always starts a good debate.

          • I did once, when a student flatmates vicar came round. If looks could kill…..(or at least seriously kick one in the nether regions).

          • Martin

            TE

            We do seem to be digging a big hole.

          • Anton

            That’s no worse than being married to a reigning Queen, as Prince Philip is.

          • Pubcrawler

            Something that the first Elizabeth regnant was aware of: one reason she never found a suitable spouse.

          • Martin

            Anton

            The appointment of sovereigns is not addressed in Scripture.

          • Anne Peat

            No, I didn’t miss your point. I just ignored it, since it is so silly as not to be worth answering. We’re not living in the first or even the 19th century.

          • carl jacobs

            It also isn’t Thursday anymore. It’s Friday. But things that are objectively true on Thursday don’t become false on Friday just because the Sun sets and rises.

          • Anne Peat

            Another silly point. Relationships between spouses are not something that is ‘objectively true’. They are subject to changes in culture and understanding over time.

          • carl jacobs

            I’ll be sure to tell my wife that all that stuff about adultery is subject to changes in culture and understanding over time. She’ll be thrilled. And please. Do tell me that adultery isn’t about the relationship between spouses. You are right in one sense though. Cultures do change their understandings and practices over time. It’s called “Doing what is right in your own eyes.”. Doesn’t make it right or any less false.

          • Anne Peat

            Funny, I don’t recall anything in the previous conversation about adultery. I thought we were talking about authority.

          • carl jacobs

            Is that what we were doing? Having a conversation? It’s hard to tell amidst all that condescension you present. But let’s leave that be.

            What you are talking about I am not quite sure. I simply commented on that non-sequitur you substituted for an argument. That would be some variation on the theme of “We don’t believe that anymore because that was then and this is now.” Otherwise known as “This isn’t the seventh century.” Yes, and it isn’t raining outside either at the moment. What has that to do with anything? Morality isn’t a function of time. If you want to claim moral superiority over people in the first century, you have to … you know .. actually make an argument, and not just assume your own virtue on the basis of your date of birth. And when you make that argument, you have to make it with authority. Here is a hint. You aren’t an authority. And since you are trying to overturn the authority of the Living God, you had better come with something more substantial than “We’re not living in the first or even the 19th century.”

          • penelopedoe

            Carl I don’t think adultery in the Hebrew Bible was anything to do with relationship between spouses. It was about ownership.

          • carl jacobs

            Learn that in your Feminist Studies course work, did you?

          • penelopedoe

            God, you’re thick. Go away and learn some history before making anachronistic comments about marriage and adultery in the Bronze Age.

          • carl jacobs

            Heh. Evidently l’m not thick enough to be fooled by your bullshit. I have a better idea. I have been around here for five years. Why don’t you go away instead. That way we will both be happy.

          • penelopedoe

            I can see why you like it here. Lots of ghastly old misogynists confirming each other’s prejudices and calling scholarship bullshit. The worst kind of philistinism.

          • carl jacobs

            At least you are no longer hiding your religious presuppositions behind a feigned historical argument. That’s progress … of a sort.

          • Martin

            Anne

            God’s law does not change according to the century we are in.

    • Quite so. And sincere apologies to Canon Rosie Harper for berating her on this point. Perhaps, Anne, you might ask Canon Harper why a female bishop being married to a member of the clergy renders them somehow ‘right field’; and why, if a partner’s profession ought to be taken into account when considering their episcopal suitability, why the Rev’d Dame Sarah Mullally is not ‘left field’. And then, perhaps, you might exhort Canon Harper to apologise to all these women for her untimely “good girl guides” slur; and then apologise to all those members of the House of Lords whom she berated with her assertion that if they oppose assisted suicide they are immoral and un-Christian. Far easier, of course, to quibble over a careless bit of hasty statistical research.

      • Anne Peat

        Why should I have to ask her anything, Adrian? I’m not the one whose been making an issue of what she wrote and posting slurs about her opinions and unfounded allegations about her supposed ambitions.

        • Because, Anne, it speaks volumes about your inclination to correct and rebuke that you think it more important to take issue with a trivial statistical error than to urge Canon Rosie Harper to apologise for broadcasting her sour note via the national broadcast medium while the rest of the Church was rejoicing. But, clearly, it’s far easier. QED.

          • Anne Peat

            Not at all Adrian. It says nothing at all about my ‘inclinations’ except that I pointed out to you an error of FACT on the basis of which you had criticised someone, and suggested you might apologise.You then suggested I should ask her to apologise for her OPINIONS. Different thing entirely.

          • Your priorities are manifest, and so is your sarcastic sorority sexism when you write: “Or does being male allow you to make 5 out of 6 not a majority in your world?” If you wish to rebuke a mote of statistical error, you might take care of the beam of misandry in your attitude. It is akin to Canon Harper’s “boys’ game” and “little boys lost” haughtiness. These are bishops of the Church she is talking about. But that, of course, is “her OPINION” (no need for upper case, by the way: it is unnecessarily aggressive), so doubtless nothing to apologise for. Incidentally, when someone is exhorted to apologise and they have the humility to do so, the least you can do is have the grace to thank them.

          • Anne Peat

            You weren’t apologising to me, Adrian, but to Canon Harper. So, not for me to thank or not thank you for it, particularly when you went on to demand aggressively that I ask her to apologise for her opinions. As for ‘sarcastic sorority sexism’ what’s that? Not something I’ve come across in my work; and I don’t think the people I work with would accuse me of ‘misandry’ either. Pity you couldn’t just apologise for your error and leave it at that, but there.

          • QED

          • Inspector General

            A whisper in your shell like, old chap. Think you might be wise to let Anne have the final word {Ahem}

    • Quinquagesima

      As a matter of fact, Canon Mrs Harper is married to a cleric herself.

  • William Lewis

    Is this not typical of the work of those “from left-field” – the belittling, the bullying, the innuendo, the aspersions? How shameful that it should come from a Canon of the CoE.

  • So looks like every vacancy coming up to be a bishop is going to be filled by a woman ? Sounds like positive discrimination or a quota system?

    Anyway I though Jesus was supposed to appoint these bishops, via the the holy ghost, the queen and the prime minister, so wouldn’t he want to choose the best candidate for the job, rather than just women because the c of e wants to be modern-day or whatever. (?).

    • Anton

      It is, of course, due to their superior qualities over the males considered for those positions.

      Rome also ascribes the results of papal elections to the Holy Spirit rather than to the nepotism and bribery that was rife in the Renaissance era.

      • Not necessarily, Anton. Catholics believe that whilst the Holy Spirit guarantees the Church indefectibility over questions of faith and morals, election of Popes is in the hands of Cardinals and subject to human flaws and weaknesses. The Holy Spirit does not elect Popes.

        • Anton

          Thank you for the correction. Was the outcome formally ascribed to the Holy Spirit during any era of Catholic church history, please?

          • To be honest, Jack doesn’t know but doubts it very much.

            Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1997 when asked if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected to the Papacy:

            “I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

          • Pubcrawler

            Quite. The Spirit may hint, but the decision is Man’s. With all that that entails.

          • Indeed; it’s part of the mystery of Providence. Catholics believe God guides his Church but this does not prevent human free will and that means there is the potential for humans to abuse their free will. This applies to the College of Cardinals when they are electing a pope. Take scoundrels like Pope Benedict IX, elected in 1032. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter.”

    • dannybhoy

      “Anyway I though Jesus was supposed to appoint these bishops, via the the holy ghost, the queen and the prime minister,”
      Hello Sam,
      You’re being facetious and it’s unbecoming of you.
      Our Lord Jesus, Yeshua haMeshiach, is not interested in the machinations of the Church of England.
      He did not live His life in accordance with the Mosaic Law or allow Himself to be put to death on the Cross so that He could be poked fun at, or get involved in church politics.

      • Dude

        I feel deeply upset that you think I was being facetious! As I understand it Anglican Christians believe that Jesus (i.e. God in the Anglican view) is the head of the church and the Queen is the supreme governor of said church, so she in her wisdom(I’m sure she does, as a devout Christian pray for guidance) appoints them on the advice of the church and prime minister .

        My concern – being ecumenical- was that this process of appointments of bishops wasn’t being done according to that ideal, but because the c of e wants to look trendy to the rest of the world and it is suspect that all the recent appointments have been female.

        In all honesty, I was being ecumenical and trying to give my support to the traditional orthodox Anglicans. My uncle was a staunch Anglican Zionist , women priests and bishops practically destroyed (in his view) the c of e as a part of the apostles church. Almost turned him to Roman Catholicism.

        • dannybhoy

          Good.
          I am glad you are deeply upset. It shows that despite our theological differences we can honour and respect each other.
          You know that Judaism had its prophets and we Christians honour them as well as those who down through the last two thousand years have been prompted by the Ruach haKodesh to admonish or encourage the Church.
          We in the Church are guilty of failing/abusing/persecuting the Jews in Europe. We could say that this was in part due to ignorance because so many generations couldn’t read the Scriptures for themselves, and were dependent on the priests to interpret for them.
          We have to accept our guilt in persecuting the people from whom our own Lord and Saviour originated and continues to love.
          But please, all this garbage about what is happening in the Cof E does not represent the true Church.

          • Dude

            I’m upset because you thought my initial post was sarcasm.

          • dannybhoy

            No, I didn’t think it was sarcasm, I thought you were dissing the One I regard as my Lord and Saviour by including Him in the process..

          • Hi Danny

            you are being so silly. Sam wasn’t “dissing” anyone: we both know enough about Anglican and Catholic stuff to understand that the belief is that God (Jesus is God according to Christianity) should appoint bishops. What Sam was suggesting was that Jesus had been replaced by a political correctness in appointing women bishops as a first and second preference.

          • dannybhoy

            Hannah,
            “we both know enough about Anglican and Catholic stuff to understand that the belief is that God (Jesus is God according to Christianity) should appoint bishops.”

            That’s absolutely, totally wrong though.
            In fact it’s garbage! It’s human fabrication invented by the mediaeval church which saw itself as the spiritual succesor to the Roman Empire..
            Neither a friend of the Jews or the Jewish believers in Yeshua ha Meshiach.
            If you look in the Brith haHadasha there is nowhere Jesus talks about successors or organisations.
            He commands His talmidim to go out into the world and preach the Gospel of repentance and reconciliation with HaShem.
            He commands.
            Like El Shaddai He neither negotiates or play politics..

          • Hi

            Well you can argue this out with Anglicans and Catholics, although I’ve been told on this blog that Christians have the “apostle succession “from Peter who was given the authority of Christianity (via the new testament) and from that a bishop gets their authority . But it’s not for me to argue the theology in a religion that I do not subscribe . I am telling you , however , that to my mind my brother was being perfectly rational and non offensive in his first post. Quite why you are taking umbrage is beyond us both.

          • dannybhoy

            I never argue with family loyalties. In principle I always support them.
            However you yourself will know that I personally have never made fun of any fundamental Jewish belief, and never will.
            Whoever these people are that told you our Lord passed on His authority to Peter the fisherman are mistaken, and knowingly or unknowingly support an organisation that mostly supported or collaborated in the persecution of your people during Hitler the Nazi’s evil reign.
            https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Marrus.html

            Of course I wouldn’t want to upset your brother, but let’s face the facts. Jesus didn’t play politics. He knew who He was born as, and He knew He was going to die as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
            A man who lived like that and allowed Himself to be most horribly crucified does not involve Himself on the petty polical processes of a petty and self important organisation playing Church.

          • Hi Danny

            I guess that one shouldn’t be getting involved in these type of arguments about what’s right and wrong within the branches of Christianity as Judaism is enough for me .

            Aleikhem Shalom.

          • dannybhoy

            Hi Hannahle
            As you and Shmu’el and most here know there are some things we hold dear to our hearts and we would regard as being ‘sensitive’ to our faith.
            The core of my faith is that Jesus is God and He showed His love for rebellious man by being born as a man and dying on the Cross for me. He is the King of Kings, the second person of the Godhead.
            Now of course you have different views on that as we have partially explored on your own blog.
            I get fed up with the politics in the CofE, and I really didn’t want my Saviour being associated with all the nonsense that goes on in the established Church. Shmu’el was right in what he said but I love my Lord and as the King of Kings there is no way He would be associated with this posturing and game playing.
            So I didn’t mean to upset Shmu’el, and he should know my reaction was not aimed at him, or you.

          • Ahem …. if Jack may ….

            Jesus most certainly did establish Peter as leader of the Apostles and God, through the Holy Spirit, has, and continues, to guide the Church in the development of its teachings – one being Apostolic succession.

            How on earth is believing this supporting the Holocaust?

          • ” I thought you were dissing the One I regard as my Lord and Saviour by including Him in the process.. ”

            So a non Christian acknowledging that to Christians God chooses bishops brings you to be offended ?! What asylum am I posting in?!

          • dannybhoy

            Not an asylum Shmu’el.
            It seems you have received your understanding of Christianity through those of a purely Catholic or Anglican persuasion.
            I am from a non conformist background and I regard Scripture, not the traditions of men as my starting point.
            Kind of like your orthodox brethren but with the Brith HaHadasha thrown in.

          • Dude

            You can argue this out with Anglicans and Catholics then, it’s got nothing to do with me. I simply tried to make a relatively harmless quip about the c of e and I get ….But I shall bid you an indefinite adieu.

            Note :

            The more orthodox (Jewish) you are, the more you are steeped in tradition(in a Jewish sense). True of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic and that is a large part of orthodoxy and to sephardim /mizrahi who are Shomer Masoret . It’s the reform Jewish “denomination” who thrown away the tradition.

          • dannybhoy

            Shmu’el
            My faith is as important to me as your faith is to you.
            You can be as miffed as you want to be. You may remember my saying that building a relationship based on mutual respect rather than theology is the best way forward?

          • Sorry but this is twilight zone stuff. I’ve done nothing to offend your faith. If you are offended* then you need to check yourself, you should be taking ready aims at those Anglicans and Catholics who post here and not I. Regardless of this , I see no further reason to bother engaging with you on this or any other forum.

            Good night.

            *because I’ve apparently put forwards an Anglican or Catholic view , but in reality was just an attempt at an amusing critique of the current c of e ways.

          • Sam

            Danny

            I have reflected and despite my incomprehension on this discussion, I appreciate regardless of that you have been offended. I sincerely apologise. Aleikhem Shalom.

          • dannybhoy

            Thank you Shmu’el. I just answered Hannale’s post and I sincerely appreciate your response.
            The best way I can explain it (and btw I know you weren’t being insulting), is like if someone says something about or involving the most important person in your life. You want to defend them right? That’s how it was.
            Shmu’el thanks for apologising Bro.
            Brechot Ravot.

          • Sam

            Well that makes us dudes again!

          • dannybhoy

            Absolutely.
            Sometimes people misunderstand each other. Especially if they come from very different backgrounds. But when they are humble enough to say sorry, that’s how you build a friendship.
            Am Yisrael Chai!

          • Anton

            O Danny Boy,

            I took Sam’s words as satire aimed at the CoE, not at Jesus of Nazareth to whom I look for my salvation.

          • dannybhoy

            And you might be right Anton.

            However here’s what he actually said,
            “Anyway I though Jesus was supposed to appoint these bishops, via the the holy ghost, the queen and the prime minister,”

          • In other words what I was taking for granted (because, citizens , I assumed Christians do take this for granted):

            God inspires (in theory, if not in practice) the choices of who should be leading the church of England, i.e. God “moves” the secular powers that be to appoint the right person (in theory) . But to muse about how the c of e has moved to a secular quota system , this is a heresy or blasphemy or offense?!

            How different is this then to protestant elder chaps who ask God to inspire them (or help them appoint) in the choices of ministers and pastors, but decided women had to take top priority because it looks good. Or is that offensive as well?

          • dannybhoy

            Sam
            let’s not make a storm in a teacup. I am simply pointing out that many Christians do not accept the idea that Jesus Christ is involved in choosing a new pope or a new archbishop. It’s men choosing leaders for a man made organisation.That’s where the politics come in, and the argeybargey about male and female bishop priests or bishops or whatever.
            My reaction to your including my Lord and Saviour in all that nonsense is because it cheapens who He is.
            Don’t have a cow about it, just accept that not all Christians are Catholics or Anglicans.
            Please also remember the many times you or others have taken offence at something someone may have said about Judaism, whether meant or not.

          • Clearly Danny needs to read some Trollope ….

          • dannybhoy
    • “the best candidate for the job”

      The candidate who would be best AT the job and the candidate whom it would be best to have DOING the job, are not necessarily the same. Hence God’s choice of Saul, when Israel were silly enough to ask for a king.

      http://JohnAllman.UK

  • The Explorer

    Thanks, babe. You’re hot totty as well as posh totty.

  • Graham Smith

    This is a very hurtful piece of prose, IMHO, and quite unlike the usual thoughtful writings that appear on this blog.

    • Phil R

      Hurtful?

      Nothing compared to the damage to families caused by their selfishness

  • magnolia

    “..the temptation to play the boy’s game.”

    I am very uncomfortable with this image in this context. Yes, sometimes the Church does play its own bubble games. That happens unfortunately, as does jockeying for position, though it is profoundly anti-Christian.The following of Jesus and encouraging others to do so is central to its proper purpose. People’s souls and eternal destinies. No way is it a game, to be played the girls’ way as well as the boys’. That completely misses the very core of Christian discipleship.

  • Revd Robert West

    The final and supreme authority within the Church of England is to be the Holy Scripture (see Articles 6, 20, and 21 of the 39 Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer (1662); and the Holy Scriptures lay down quite clearly that women are not to lead, they are not to be ordained, and they are to be submissive unto their own Husbands as unto Christ (Ephesians 5: 22-27; 1 Timothy 2: 11-15; and 1 Peter 3: 1-8). We are suppossed to hold to the Apostolic faith, for the Church is built on the foundation which they laid. Paul and Peter are quite clear on this matter, as was Archbishop Cramner, following them, in his drafting of the Wedding Service in the Book of Common Prayer (1552/ 1662). It is a sad day for the Church when it brakes faith with Christ and His Apostles, see Luke 10: 16; John 13: 20; Matthew 10: 14, 40.

    • len

      Why Isn`t Welby following scripture and who exactly is he following?

      • Revd Robert West

        The whole Church has gone wrong in many ways but Archbishop Welby seems to have succumbed, as many others have done, to the spirit and fashion of the age, a follower of that fashion and not a leader. But Shepherds are supposed to lead the flock to green pastures under the Great Shepherd and not be followers of the spirit that is in the world and dominates the sons of disobedience.

        • Phil R

          He is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

          His own words. (New Wine Week 1, 2013)

          With that in mind he clearly does not think it matters what he says agrees to or does

          • Revd Robert West

            Things began to go bad with the Oxford or Ritualistic movement and then with the rise of Modernism and Liberal Evangelicalism. This led to false ecumenism, the British Council of Churches, ARCIC; and then when the decision to ordain women as presbyters came, a lot of evangelicals lost their never and stayed put without giving an uncompromising call to repent. The Liberals in power now weed out any potential prophetic or scriptural voice. Neverthesless God, even within the Church of England now, can revive His Church. I wish those who remain well.

  • Quinquagesima

    Canon Rosie Harper is married to a clergyman herself.