Church of England

Synod vote on same-sex relations: it was female clergy wot won it (or lost it)

The electronic voting results for the Synod motion on ‘Marriage and Same-Sex Relations after the Shared Conversations‘ have been released. As we know, in an exercise of pure democracy, Synod as a whole voted to ‘take note’ of the report. But a request was made to count the votes by Houses, and since the report failed to secure a simply majority in the House of Clergy, the motion was lost (or won, depending on one’s point of view or democratic objective).

But breaking these results down by sex illuminates a statistical significance:

synod vote

*It has been assumed, for the purposes of this analysis, that Lisa, Sally and Nikki are female, and Geoffrey, Barney and Giles are male. It is understood, in this gender-fluid age, that this may not necessarily be the case. It is further assumed that all those called Chris and Sam are male. In the presumption of patriarchy, no offence is intended. It is known that Tiffer is definitely male.

Obviously there are key variables. Since there were only three voting female bishops, and this being a Bishops’ report, there is nothing statistically noteworthy in the House of Bishops’ result: we simply cannot know whether bishops Christine, Libby and Rachel voted in accordance with their consciences (or, indeed, whether 40 male bishops all voted in accordance with their consciences, though we do know that Bishop Christopher Cocksworth’s finger slipped, so the single vote against was really in favour).

But in the House of Clergy, 78% of women voted against the motion to take note. This is what quantitative analysts would term ‘statistically significant’, not least because the proportion falls to 57% of women in the House of Laity (excluding two abstentions).

There is no reason for pointing this out other than the fact that there appears to be a high degree of correlation in the House of Clergy between same-sex matters and women’s concerns (assuming, of course, that female clergy are more concerned with issues pertaining to their gender, or feminism, or sex equality). Another way of looking at it is that – on this report at least – female clergy have disproportionately less confidence in a predominantly male episcopate than their male counterparts. Possibly fewer of them are Anglo-Catholic (or Evangelical?), and more of them incline toward liberal-Anglican theology and hermeneutics.

It would be deeply appreciated if those who are tempted to use this post to berate female clergy (or those who support them) wouldn’t do so. Really, don’t. That’s a ‘Do Not’. What is certain is that the benevolent pragmatism by which the Church of England has arrived at (and justified) women priests is changing the identity of Anglicanism. Some see that as a positive move away from prejudice, misogyny and dogmatic conservatism; others believe it to be misguided and damaging.

We now await the day when the House of Bishops approaches parity between the sexes. Then, it would appear, that such a report wouldn’t be likely ever to make it to Synod, and so catholic-minded Anglicans would never get to vote on the matter at all. The trajectory appears to be set.

  • “It would be deeply appreciated if those who are tempted to use this post to berate female clergy (or those who support them) wouldn’t do so. Really, don’t. That’s a ‘Do Not’.”

    Shucks …..

    • len

      Jack, Not to comment ‘angrily’ . Tell ‘the Inspector ‘ not to bother commenting today.
      berate
      bɪˈreɪt/Submit
      verb
      scold or criticize (someone) angrily.

    • Albert

      Probably not. After all, you seem to be missing the biblical evidence of the Second Eve.

      • One doubts many of these women “priests” have the qualities of the Second Eve – not the least of which is humility, obedience, and acceptance and trust in God’s word.

        (Is that “berating” female clergy, Len?)

  • 60% of male clergy voted to note the report. 22% of female clergy did so. This does appear to spell doom for orthodoxy as women enter the episcopacy in greater numbers. But I can’t see that making synod as a whole much more disposed to pass the relevant changes with the super-majorities required. So yet more years of handwringing and unseemly bickering (and blatant disregard for teaching and guidance) awaits. With what resolution in sight? None that I can see. What a complete and utter mess. The Church of England is finally being undone by its inherent lack of commitment to orthodoxy and discipline. It is excruciating to watch.

  • Martin

    I understand that at least one Evangelical (in the true sense of the term) voted against. So maybe those who voted for are merely those who hold no real view.

    Mind, female ‘clergy’ are forbidden in Scripture anyway. Not that ‘clergy’ are a separate group from the laity in Scripture anyway.

    • The report was opposed by a number of conservatives (it would be very interesting indeed to know how many) because of its stated intention to encourage maximum freedom within the rules. But I think there is an assumption, which would probably be borne out by closer analysis, that the female clergy who voted against almost all did so from a liberal standpoint.

      • Martin

        Will

        I think we can guarantee that the female ‘clergy’ are all liberals.

        • David

          Yes, almost by definition.

          • Merchantman

            Yes, In church a marriage announced as between two persons. 🙁

  • Albert

    there appears to be a high degree of correlation in the House of Clergy between same-sex matters and women’s concerns…female clergy have disproportionately less confidence in a predominantly male episcopate than their male counterparts. Possibly fewer of them are Anglo-Catholic (or Evangelical?), and more of them incline toward liberal-Anglican theology and hermeneutics.

    The latter of these seems to be the best explanation. We already know that female clergy are more liberal than male clergy. This is kind of inevitable and is what other evidence shows: http://trushare.com/87aug02/AU02MIND.htm . Therefore, it is a better explanation than the other two offered by the OP.

    • Isn’t an Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical woman “priest” a contradiction in terms?

      • Albert

        I think really an Anglo-Catholic is a contradiction in terms.

        • That’s a whole other discussion ….

      • Albert

        This is exactly the point. The ordination of women strikes at the heart of Christianity. It says Jesus is not our authority, because he has hidden the light of the world under the bushel of his contemporary culture. That makes no sense of the incarnation, and it also removes all sense of maintaining Christian teaching on other matters. In fact, it removes all sense of maintaining Christian teaching on any matter. This is why, when the Trojan Horse of women’s ordination is accepted, people typically give up other things as well. If they remain Christians at all, it is only on pain of inconsistency. And this is what we can see going on in the CofE as the years go by.

          • Albert

            The presence of nutters in the Catholic Church is not evidence of war.

          • Head of the Jesuits and a close associate of the Pope Francis.

          • Albert

            My understanding is that Francis’ relationship with the Js is complicated. And even if that were not the case, the expression of an opinion by one person is not the expression of an opinion of another.

          • This approach is a growing in the Church and is consistent with some of Pope Francis’ statements in Amoris Laetitia. Here’s another proponent of a “dynamic” interpretation of Jesus, as opposed to a “perfectionalist” interpretation:

            http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350967bdc4.html?eng=y

          • Albert

            I haven’t read this, but if it does not challenge indissolubility but does rest on the fact that to be guilty of mortal sin you need to fulfil three conditions and not just one, then it is not a change in teaching.

          • IanCad

            I wonder what Francis thinks about that.

    • Coniston

      In 2002 the independent Christian Research organisation was commissioned to conduct a survey on the beliefs of Anglican clergy. It found that female clergy consistently had less orthodox beliefs than male clergy about God the Father, Jesus, the resurrection, the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. But a worrying minority of all clergy did not have orthodox beliefs on these matters.
      But it isn’t only Anglicans who have problems. The Catholic Herald has an article headed ‘The [Catholic] Church is now in a full-blown civil war over doctrine

      • Albert

        I think it’s the Christian Research figures I refer to in my link.

        I am not at all convinced that there is anything like a comparison with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Herald says there is a full-blown civil war over doctrine, but this seems false to me. No one is denying anything doctrinal (like the indissolubility of marriage). The issues surround the application of the Church’s teaching on conscience. It is already Catholic teaching that someone who engages in an act which is grave matter (e.g. adultery) does not necessarily incur mortal sin, because it takes more than grave matter for the sin to be mortal. Thus, in principle a person who is in an adulterous relationship may not in fact be in a state of mortal sin. Now that may of course be wishful thinking, but it is not a doctrinal innovation.

        There is therefore no comparison with an Anglican clergy who denied fundamental Christian teaching.

        • Coniston

          I did not say the problems were of equal importance.

          • Albert

            Of course not, but I think the language of war in the CH is overblown.

  • Andrew Holt

    I know I’m slow but I’ve only just realised when this went before Synod why the Anglicans are being so publicly ripped apart on this issue. Most other denominations are having to face the sex/gender questions but with nothing like the associated publicity. When you go under we are all sunk insofar as gay marriage is concerned. I think at that point it will be possible to make it illegal to follow ones conscience and deny the ceremony, in church, to whoever demands it. The gay lobby will truly be able to have their cake and eat it.

    • Many free churches only marry members. My church only brings into membership those who are signed up to our constitution which states specifically that marriage can only exist between people of opposite sexes.
      Should this prove somehow to be unsustainable, we shall simply stop celebrating marriages altogether.

      • Albert

        Which would be a sad but interesting consequence of your freedom being limited by the alleged freedom of others.

        • It’s no big deal in one sense. Like Dominic’s church, we do very few weddings. But you are right; it would be the limiting of our freedom because of the demands of others.

      • Dominic Stockford

        We have already ceased to be registered persons in order to avoid difficulties (and because we get so few marriages). Handing back the registers and ceasing to have the ‘legal’ part of marriage in our building would be a small step further.

  • carl jacobs

    On the bright side, there soon won’t be any remaining laity for the liberal clergy to harangue.

    • David

      “there soon won’t be any remaining laity for the liberal clergy …”
      For the liberal clergy led, local churches, yes you’re more or less right, as the trajectory is sharply downwards.
      But the Bible following ones, are either steady or growing gently.

  • Susan Ellis

    No one knows how many prefer each different method of Christianity. Those in the synod don’t represent this because clergy usually take an available post. Some clergy have learnt many different styles of worship. Our congregation in a town is a mixture. It would be great to see more Bible Schools in the CofE. Relationships between CofE seem friendly so perhaps why a wide /broad church. I don’t agree with erosion of the Bible. If people are gays/lesbians that is what they have decided. The Bible should not be changed. If they decide on a civil marriage/partnership that is what they have decided. This is acceptable now in Britain. The Bible does not say this is right. If they are good Christians then it is there decision and if they are wrong one day on reaching heaven then they chose to go against what is written. They think they are right, they won’t change unless they really agree this is wrong. It would be wrong if Clergy had to marry these people and would end up in hell. It would be the Synod who would be responsible and led them the wrong way in life. Nowhere does it say immorality or adultery are right either. People come into the church and clean up themselves but if they marry they are not in sin. That seems unfair on the others but what is written. If you see a cow down a well you would not leave it there neither would you want to leave anyone in their sins. If people keep nag nag these people to change they have proved this does not work so people offer them the peace. If they have said even once don’t agree with them in agree to differ manner then they are not responsible because the gays don’t won’t nagging out of it and find what is said unacceptable to them. Do people think they should be mentioned to slightly more? By not totally following the Bible and changing there is a slight rift or division.

    • Gordon Tough

      If homosexuality is a choice, as you claim, then logically heterosexuality is also a choice. I don’t recall anyone sitting me down and giving me the option. When did you choose your sexuality?

      • carl jacobs

        Behavior is always a choice. The existence of a desire does not justify choosing to act on that desire.

      • We are men and women – not “heterosexuals” and “homosexuals”.

        • Martin

          HJ

          Golly, that’s 2 upticks I’ve given you today.

          • Lol …. you’re being corrupted, Martin.

          • Martin

            definitely.

          • Jack notes you up-ticked a third comment. This is getting serious.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Could be that you are getting corrupted.

          • Impossible. Jack is a Catholic.

          • Martin

            HJ

            All Christians are Catholic, it’s just that some restrict themselves to a small city.

          • Catholicity arises from shared beliefs and unity.

          • Martin

            HJ

            That’s why Rome left it.They started off with silly things like the controversy over the date of Easter and expelled or subjugated everyone.

        • Guglielmo Marinaro

          Yes, and most men and women are heterosexual. Only a small minority of men and women are homosexual.

          • Jack would say: a small proportion of men and women, for reasons we don’t fully understand, have sexual desires out of tune with God’s design for relationships between the sexes.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, quite a few people would say that. I wouldn’t.

          • Jack acknowledges that. However, it is impossible to justify your position from scripture or from natural law.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Yes, scripture doesn’t allow for that reality. I know of no natural law that contradicts it.

          • The natural law premise that holds that God created everything with an ultimate purpose in mind and in creating men and women he intended them to use their bodily organs according to His design.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You clearly assume that a small minority of men and women being homosexual is not part of God’s design. I see no good reason to make that assumption.

          • If that were the case, then surely their bodies would be complimentary? Our sexual organs are designed for reproduction and other parts of our anatomy have other purposes.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Their bodies work well together. Not in a way that would satisfy you, perhaps, but that doesn’t matter, since it doesn’t need to.

          • This is more the Inspector’s territory than Jack’s, but the hazards to health associated with male same sex activities suggests otherwise.

          • Inspector General

            HIV Super-Infection looks to be the next big thing. Where a victim carries 2 different strains. (As yet, 3 or more cases have not been identified, but that will come). Chillingly, one strain might react with the ideal retro drug cocktail decided on but the other not.

            Viruses being viruses then. Always one step ahead of us. Well, flu is. Can’t see why HIV will be any different…

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            And as we all know, HIV can’t be transmitted heterosexually. It’s a pity that so many of the developing countries where HIV is so widespread among the heterosexual population don’t know that.

          • Inspector General

            HIV is rather difficult to transmit, as you know. It takes a lesion in the skin or flesh so the infected fluid comes into contact with the victims blood. A good example then would be the frequent tears as happens in the end of the bowel during your favourite pastime…

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            You know Sweet-Fanny-Adams about my favourite pastime. I suspect that what you really mean is your favourite obsession.

          • Inspector General

            You’re an open book, Gug…

          • Kent Novinger

            Of course it can be transmitted by heterosexuals but the vast majority of the spread of AIDS is transmitted by homosexual males, and your sacasim does not serve to invalidate that very well established fact, it only serves to make you appear very foolish!

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            The spread of AIDS in developing countries among the heterosexual population is most alarming.

          • Gordon Tough

            so what is the purpose of our appendix? Apart to become infected and pop

          • The function of the appendix is unknown. One theory is that the appendix acts as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses. Other experts believe the appendix is just a remnant from our evolutionary past.

          • Martin

            HJ

            Actually it is a known part of the immune system, mostly active in the young. Those who say it is vestigial assume that it is the remnant of an extended digestive system. In other words, they assume Evolution to prove Evolution, aka circular reasoning.

          • Albert

            Others have answered the issue of the appendix, but crucially, nothing would follow even if the question couldn’t be answered. Jack said this:

            Our sexual organs are designed for reproduction and other parts of our anatomy have other purposes

            He did not say

            Our sexual organs are designed for reproduction if all other parts of our anatomy have other purposes

          • Kent Novinger

            Perhaps a knowledge of God’s word would serve to dispel your ignorance. Clearly heterosexual relations are complementary, while in order to engage in homosexual relations, the parts must be inverted or backwards, the don’t fit and they have no function, unless you ascribe design to a man having sexual relations with an animal, simply because he might achieve an orgasm! You really need to read Romans chapter 1, the Apostle Paul uses homosexuality to demonstrate how man has perverted the natural order of things….homosexuality is a perversion! Your argument is absurd on it’s face! Since a small segment of humanity engage in rape, does that serve to justify rape, is rape part of God’s plan? Your comments appear to be from one who seeks to rationalize his own sinful behavior, and reconcile that behavior with a belief in God, and yet you deny God’s teachings!

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Thank you for telling me what you believe, which is not what I believe.

          • Gordon Tough

            And does “God’s design” also stretch to the natural world? If so bonobos, sheep and albatross must have gotten the wrong memo.

          • We are human, will souls and reason, and through revelation and reason can discern God’s will for us.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            To be frank, I don’t think that’s a very good argument. We can’t justify either our sexuality or our sexual behaviour by appealing to what animals do. That doesn’t matter, however, since we don’t need to.

          • Albert

            Ooops. I think that’s the argument Jack used against you!

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            What is?

          • Albert

            You said, We can’t justify either our sexuality or our sexual behaviour by appealing to what animals do.

            But that came hot on the heels of:

            And does “God’s design” also stretch to the natural world? If so bonobos, sheep and albatross must have gotten the wrong memo.

            Jack showed that the behaviour of animals is irrelevant:

            We are human, will souls and reason

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            It wasn’t I that used the argument from animal behaviour. If animals do something, that doesn’t tell us whether or not it’s right for us to do it. If animals don’t do something, that doesn’t tell us whether or not it’s wrong for us to do it. And if it is right for us to do something, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether animals also do it or not.

          • Albert

            Who used the argument from animal behaviour? I thought it was you that introduced it in the post I quoted previously. But yes, I agree with what you say here, and crucially, so, I’m sure, does Jack.

          • Martin

            GT

            and some eat their young or partners. Are you proposing mankind follow suit?

          • Dominic Stockford

            I am not an animal.

          • Gordon Tough

            evolution says otherwise

          • Martin

            GT

            Evolution says nothing, fools who believe in it spout lots of nonsense.

          • Gordon Tough

            you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Evolution is a proven fact. Belief in evolution doesn’t have to mean an atheistic world view

          • Martin

            GT

            Science does not produce proven facts. Indeed, Evolution is not even empirical science.

          • Gordon Tough

            I’m guessing you were home schooled, or from Alabama. Science does produce proven facts, it’s the goal of the scientific method. Sometimes the scientific view will change as new facts become available. Can science be anything other than empirical? Can you show evidence that evolution is a myth?

          • Martin

            GT

            Science produces the “best current knowledge”, not facts and is always testing to see if the knowledge it produced is correct.

            You cannot demonstrate any empirical evidence of the process of Evolution, it is not science.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            The problem is that people conflate evolution with natural section by random mutation. They are not the same thing. The belief in the former does not require belief in the latter, whether partial or in toto.

          • Anton

            Evolution *means* the synthesis of genetic heritance and natural selection. Are you using the word to mean evolution of distinct species from a common ancestor by this means? If so, I’d call that macroevolution. Let’s define terms.

            Please (1642, Gordon, Dominic) see the extended exchange between Martin and me on the subject on this blog:

            https://www.premierchristianity.com/content/view/full/732536

            PS Dominic: the reason you are human is because you have the neshamah of life in you because it was blown into one of your ancestors, something that happened to no animals. That statement has no bearing on the creation/evolution wars.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Didn’t want to get into a game of revisionary definition,s but I mean the process of inter-species development, some call it macro-evolution, but I know many biologists don’t accept the term because then you argue about inter-species boundaries and when they are crossed. It’s entirely possible to believe that inter-species evolution occurs at least in part by divine (Fred Hoyle speculated on alien intervention) manipulation as opposed to purely random mutations and their interaction with environmental forces. That said random mutations do occur and can produce evolutionary changes too, both macro and micro.

            BTW you owned Martin in your debate.

            The point at which God breathed sentience in the form we understand it, ie the soul/mind, is clearly impossible to discern or date. I think your paper pushes it far too far and makes some very high risk assertions lacking an evidential basis. The latest archaeological evidence is showing the origins of civilisation to be ever earlier (e.g. Gobleki Tepe dates to 9000 BC).

          • Anton

            Nothing is random to God.

            Re my paper, yes for sure it is contentious, but all other viewpoints have worse problems IMHO. If you want to go further, have a look at one of the books I mention, Nick Lane’s “Life Ascending”, which is superlative. (I came across it in the bookshop at Down House, Darwin’s Kent house which is now a museum. That and Chartwell make a good day trip.)

            I am interested in Gobleki and respect the scholarship but I’d taken only vague note of it and its date. I don’t see that it has anything to do with the stuff in my essay, as timing is a subsidiary matter once you accept an ancient creation.

          • Dominic Stockford

            If you have indisputable proof of the theory of evolution I suggest you publish it and make yourself a fortune. If not, then don’t use it as a basis for an argument.

          • carl jacobs

            The argument for homosexuality is an argument from autonomy. The assertion of nature is a blind. Said nature can’t be established independent of the desire, and the morality of the desire can’t be established by its mere existence. The actual argument is:

            1. I judge this desire to be good.
            2. I will assert a claim of nature to make the response to the desire appear inevitable.

            That way all those uncomfortable questions about complementarity and reproduction are avoided. The justification of heterosexuality is self-evident. There is no analog for homosexuality. What there is instead is an assertion of human will. “I want to. Therefore I will.” But that assertion does not hold much weight when it collides with a Creator who determined the nature of man and set moral boundaries for man accordingly.

          • Martin

            GM

            No, we can choose to behave in that way or not. It isn’t a ‘nature’.

      • Inspector General

        To identify as LGBT is the choice. What individuals who do are saying is that they are apart from their fellow man. That they do things differently, and therein lies the problem. What they do is proven not healthy for mind or body yet they persist and wish to drag society’s young into it as well. Further, LGBT groups have a common goal, to queer society as much as they can get away with. Paradoxically, so they no longer feel as to what they are, alienated (by their own choosing).

        Fellows should also be aware that the greatest rank of the LGBT is the activist. The lowest rank are those of a homosexual nature who do not bow down to this elite. But let us be quite clear on this point – LGBT are fighting for them too, whether ‘them’ approve or not, and do not take kindly to the lack of appreciation from those who hold out. Indeed, the practice of ‘outing’ can be used to blackmail those ‘traitors to the LGBT cause’. You see, they have tort on you. It doesn’t matter that it is not due in law – it doesn’t stop them from considering it so.

        There you have it then. The nefarious business of LGBT in brief. It’s now showing signs of being unstoppable. Which is somewhat daft as the most enthusiastic corrupters are the energetic late teenaged and early twenties people. Youth who quite frankly do not have responsibilities or maturity that older types have but do have the spare time to campaign aggressively. That’s where we come in. Anyone who signs up to LGBT International will get his arse kicked by this man.

        • Gordon Tough

          “What they do is proven not healthy for mind or body yet they persist and wish to drag society’s young into it as well. Further, LGBT groups have a common goal, to queer society as much as they can get away with.”
          Can you provide real peer reviewed studies which support this claim?

          • Inspector General
          • Gordon Tough

            A news website is not a peer reviewed paper. You’ll have to do better than that

          • Inspector General

            One does not intend to be a circus dog for you, racing around to find you links. You have the best possible start on that site. So start…

          • Gordon Tough

            why not just be honest, and say that you have no proof. Pink News is no more a peer reviewed paper than the daily heil or the canary are news

          • Inspector General

            It steals real news from sites that have real journalists writing said news…

          • Gordon Tough

            they may well be stealing stories, but that still doesn’t make it peer reviewed proof of your claims.

          • Inspector General

            In that case, you’ll just have to accept what this man gives you is gospel. If YOU can disprove them, make it known…

          • Gordon Tough

            It’s for you to prove your statement.

          • Inspector General

            This isn’t your day, is it….

          • Go to Pink News read the articles and take part in the comments forums, you’ll soon see for yourself what they do and how they operate.

      • Susan Ellis

        What if like you say we never choose this ourselves but are the way we are. Some might have been conditioned wrongly as a child, some are missing a parent, some have been assaulted. Many from bad experiences from being too young when christian marriage is for loving maturity. There used to be a renewal group called Living Waters who helped people to become straight.

        Some things are awful and not what people choose like sickness and disability. Paul had some kind of thorn in the flesh. It is peoples choice is they follow the Bible or not. Is it not better to be celibate?

        I was reading this hymn
        Take up thy cross the Saviour said, if thou wouldst my disciple be, deny thyself, the world forsake and humbly follow after me.

        I have always been single. I did want to marry and have children but did not happen, now too old! I was very sick and disabled so I was purified by my suffering and really don’t miss these things. That’s what happens living without and growing deeper with God as a true friend.

        People are having a discussion so how can people jump to where gays are without reading what people have put!

        • Gordon Tough

          You can’t make people straight anymore than you can made an orange an airplane. So called gay conversion therapy is abuse at best.
          There is absolutely no evidence that any of the scenarios that you have mentioned would have any effect on a person’s natural inclination towards homo/heterosexuality. They may have an effect on how their sexuality is expressed, but not on the sexuality itself.

          • Susan Ellis

            I am not sure I agreed with what I heard about Living Waters because they tried to say all people have some gay inclination, most people don’t at all. People do and used to come out of the gay community and join bible punching house churches. They left their old life behind and really changed. People have changed out of Christian circles and had successful marriages.

            I am more concerned if people have the wrong chromosomes when gay? I met someone coming back on the bus from the Luis Palau mission in London years ago and he really regretted having a sex change. God loves the whole world and would love him as he is. They might be working with these children mentioned in news recently? Would be wrong if people became more miserable and jumbled up inside.

            So what other reason?

            I don’t know but you could enquire from Steve Chalk, he is a leader of a church in London. He may know who deals with inner healing. This is Christian not new age. They pray and God reveals things in the mind from past and then more prayer – may feel Gods Love, or peace etc people look and feel totally transformed.

          • Gordon Tough

            chromosomes and genetics don’t come into it, there is no gay gene.

          • Inspector General

            Not strictly true. The big money is on a gene sequence that produces this unfortunate defect. And that means it’s hereditary, and there’s plenty of anecdotal of the problem running in some families and absent in others.

          • Susan Ellis

            Thanks, that means LGBT probably have a very strong liking for the same sex.
            If someone has a strong fear of something they will never admit what because then they have to admit what, if a fear of talking they have to admit the physical ability to talk. Perhaps LGBT don’t have a fear but don’t know that what made them like that can be dealt with, changed and healed. Probably would help someone Move on!

            I think I will stop writing here but Peace be with you!

          • Susan Ellis

            This is not an argument with Gordon about himself but about gay men who are a community in themselves and arrive at Lots door who want to sleep with the angel men who newly arrived in the city and staying at Lots house. This is in reply to a Inspector General who moved his info.
            I can’t find the other passage about the mans concubine so the gays slept with her because the man thought more decent and she died. So he cut her up and parts taken to t s of the kingdom as a message. This stuff really is not good!

            There were some Lesbians living next door to a friend but were quiet living people who would not hurt a fly.

            It is the other sort people don’t want in their lives or at their door. They are dangerous and not good.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Quite right. At any rate, no gay gene has ever been discovered and the existence of such a thing now seems highly unlikely. Ditto for a straight gene.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Chopping off your hands is a choice you can make, having hands in the first place is NOT a choice.

  • chefofsinners

    Noting the superinjunction which Cranmer has placed on saying anything either positive or negative about female clergy, let us focus on the men…

    Male church leaders are God’s appointed pattern from time immemorial and always will be.
    Male church leaders voted for orthodoxy.
    Ahem, but, male church leaders permitted the other gender to be part of church leadership. The current position is therefore entirely their fault, a total and catastrophic failure of leadership, the price of which will be the disintegration of the Church of England.
    Remember… Satan is male too.

    • Male Church leaders were harangued, pressured and made to feel guilty by women.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Male church leaders were too ready to be ‘nice’, and not ready enough to be godly.

    • Silly man, angels do not have physical form and do not reproduce. They are numerous, immaterial, and immortal. Since God designed angels not to reproduce, he didn’t design them to be male or female.

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        Does that mean that in the next world we shall cease to be male or female?

        • No because God created us male and female and our resurrected bodies will remain male and female – just as Jesus remains male. However, there will be no marriage or reproduction in Heaven so, it follows their will be no sexual desire (unless you are Muslim and male).

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Or unless you are a Swedenborgian.

          • Swedenborg was more a believer in Stars Wars theology than the bible – a Gnostic Jedi, he was.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I think that he made some good points.

          • You follow him, do you?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I’m not a member of the New Church nor would I call myself a Swedenborgian, but as I’ve said, I think that he made some good points. He was well ahead of his time in many respects.

          • Dominic Stockford

            He wrote a couple of good hymns did the Count.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            His father, Bishop Jesper Swedberg, wrote a great many hymns, which I am told are still widely sung in Swedish churches today. Something of a Swedish Charles Wesley, perhaps.

          • Including the idea that the unmarried will have a spouse in Heaven? Did it cause you to wonder what woman might be appointed to you?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Swedenborg is right, then I am sure that there will be the equivalent of gay relationships in heaven as well, and that they will be even more beautiful than they are here.

          • Hmm … There’ll certainly be non-sexual same sex relationships but not spousal, conjugal relationships.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Assuming again that Swedenborg was right, then I don’t doubt that gay relationships will be as sexual – whatever that may mean in a celestial context – as straight ones.

            As for conjugal, it all depends on what you choose to call conjugal – or, as Swedenborg preferred to say, “conjugial”.

          • A spiritual marriage between a man and a woman.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            And a spiritual gay relationship between two men is equally plausible (and desirable).

          • All our relationships in Heaven will be spiritual, not carnal.

          • Martin

            HJ

            For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:30 [ESV])

            Note: it doesn’t say in Heaven but in the resurrection which must be referring to physical bodies.

            oops, Ian got there first.

          • This is simply stating that, like angels, men and women will not reproduce and thus not engage in conjugal relationships. Are you saying Jesus is no longer male?

          • Martin

            HJ

            What is male?

          • There’s a question, Martin. It is more than having a penis which we may or may not have in the next life.

          • Martin

            HJ

            You see my point.

          • Sees it and agrees with it.

          • Anton

            Surely Jesus had one after his resurrection; therefore resurrected men shall. (No jokes please, anybody.)

          • Who knows?

          • Anton

            The parts of him visible outside his robes looked like before, or they would not have recognised him. Why should the parts of him under the robes be any different?

            What really interests me about Jesus in this sort of conversation is what his Y-chromosome looked like. My answer at the moment is simple: I don’t know.

          • Our salvation doesn’t depend on knowing something that has not been revealed.

          • Anton

            Whoever said that it did? You started the subject of whether men have penises in the New Jerusalem, and did so without reference to salvation.

          • Jack merely commented that being male in Heaven didn’t necessarily entail having a penis.

          • Anton

            Please return to Go above.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Good for you Anton. Your first admission of not knowing something. Touches of humanity are emerging through your myriad cracks.

          • Anton

            But I know what I don’t know!

          • Inspector General

            As a thought, the only way we will have a body as we know it after death is to be re-born on this damn planet. When one considers the chances or possibility of being a mud poor African, that is really mortifying.

            So, no more of your dreadful ideas, Anton…

          • Martin

            IG

            A new Earth:

            Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.
            (Revelation of John 21:1-4 [ESV])

          • Inspector General

            A new earth, Martin. A planet out there to be colonised….

          • Lol …. behave yourself.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector is quite serious on that. Remember this, it is man’s stagnation as a creature of exploration that has allowed the worst to come out of the woodwork and try to bring us all down with homosexuality. In earlier decades, these blighters would have been punched to the ground, or sent to gaol…

          • Have you been browsing odd websites, Inspector? Perhaps Jesus was an alien from an advanced civilisation.

          • Anton

            It’s not in question that he browses odd websites…

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Captain Peel, the emerging Nelson of the Victorian navy who died at the end of the Indian Mutiny, was regarded as a great Christian paladin of the time. He forecast that if Britain lost its empire the extrovert dynamic British would turn in on themselves and become degenerate. An uncannily accurate prophecy. The Anglo-Celtic peoples are a frontier people because living on the edge brings out their greatest qualities. Lacking a frontier we decay.

          • Martin

            Anton

            Evidence?

          • Anton

            The parts of him visible outside his robes looked like before, or they would not have recognised him. Why should the parts of him under the robes be any different? Serious question; serious answer requested.

          • Cressida de Nova

            No…we will be an essence or spirit..not an earthly form….maybe an earthly consciousness involving our gender. We do not know.
            We do not need to know. Some things have to be left to the imagination and remain a mystery.

          • We believe in a physical resurrection of the body, Cressie. Apart from that, the rest is unclear.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Yes but the body ( I am fairly sure it is written somewhere} would be transformed. We do not know exactly how it will be transformed. At what age will be resurrected? The age of our death or when we looked our best? Stupid questions. Our bodies may be resurrected in some form but it will be a situation that is unlike anything we know.That is what I meant by ‘an earthly consciousness involving our gender’ and human form.

            St Matthew gives a good explanation I think. He is a Catholic saint is he not ?

            “For in the resurrection they neither marry or are given in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven.

            angels are not human
            angels are ethereal
            we will be like angels but not angels
            the future beyond
            is a surprise

            pleasant for some
            but not for everyone

            i heard
            a prince of the Church
            announce
            that he thought
            most people would be saved
            that was a surprise

          • Saint Paul writes about our resurrected bodies.

            (1 Corinthians 15:42-46 )
            “What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.”

            Here’s what Father Most has written:

            blockquote>”Those who have been faithful to Christ will rise glorious, their bodies transformed on the model of the risen body of Christ, who could travel instantly at will, could ignore closed doors and come through anyway, but yet had real flesh. St. Paul says the risen body is “spiritual ” (15:44). It is still flesh, but such that the flesh is completely dominated by the soul, so that it can no longer suffer or die …

            After the resurrection, each of person will have the same body (except for imperfections) that he had in this life …

            We will, of course be the same persons after the resurrection as we were before death.”

            https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/rboda1.htm

            So, looks like we’ll have the same bodies we had in earthly life, but our resurrection bodies will not die and, for those in Christ, they will be transformed into a glorified state, freed from suffering and pain.

            But, as Saint John writes:

            (1 John 3:2)

            “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.2

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Who are “we”?

          • Christians who profess the Nicene Creed.

        • Merchantman

          No need for reproduction there, because no one is born in heaven.

        • IanCad

          “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
          Matthew 22:30

          • Merchantman

            Fortunately this is proof Mo got it wrong.

          • IanCad

            Never thought of that! You’re so right.

          • Merchantman

            The 70 virgins are just part of another dream that went terribly wrong and required a clean up!

          • The Explorer

            The 70 virgins are a mistranslation of bunches of grapes, according to one Western scholar. He is, of course, in hiding, despite using a false name. You can see why: ruinous for motivating suicide bombers.

      • chefofsinners

        Those whose agenda is to allege sexism in scripture make much of the fact that God is referred to as ‘He’. They rarely pause to reflect that Satan is similarly gender-assigned.
        I tend to agree that angels would struggle to know which restroom they should use in Donald Trump’s America. However, the scriptures do seem to indicate that angels fathered the nephilim.

        • Angels wouldn’t need to use a restroom ….

          Some of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria suggested that the “sons of God” may refer to righteous descendants (men) of Seth who took descendants (women) of Cain as wives. In such a case, “sons of God” associates the men with the goodness of God whereas “daughters of men” would be intended as a contrast to this.

          Other commentators suggest that the “sons of God” were (fallen) angels who somehow mated with human women, but this presents metaphysical complications in light of the natures of each.

          • chefofsinners

            No shit, Sherlock?

          • Angels produce none of that either ….

          • chefofsinners

            I defer to your intimate knowledge of the cherubum.

          • You should get to know your guardian angel better.

          • chefofsinners

            I prefer my Daily Telegraph angel.
            It bringeth gladder tidings.

  • Don Benson

    It never took much intelligence to predict that the arrival of female clergy on the Church of England scene would be a boost to the liberal cause (for a variety of reasons) and therefore push the Church of England in that direction.

    The important question is whether the consequent mess is one that the church has any prospect of surviving.

    • bluedog

      When an experiment has failed it is rational to end it. But the CoE seems to be taking its lead from the EU, where the solution to failure is even more of the deficient policy setting. If this is the case, the logical outcome within the CoE will be that witnessed in the US TEC, as is long predicted by communicant Carl. In short there will be be a split in the Anglican communion, following the US precedent. A point will be reached when Liberals and Traditionalists agree that they cannot co-exist, with the Liberals leaving to form their own church.

      • 1642+5thMonarchy

        Agreed, but the argument is over who leaves.

        • bluedog

          The Liberals. Or at least the Traditionalists need to force the Liberals out while the Traditionalists still have the numbers. Pro-action rather than reaction.

          • 1642+5thMonarchy

            Totally agree but where is the conservative leadership?

          • bluedog

            Nowhere to be seen.

          • Inspector General

            In hiding. For verily, they do not have the spirit of Christ about them…

      • David

        Over time, the Liberal’s numbers and proportion of the whole are decreasing, whilst the conservative Biblical ones are increasing. This could result in an eventually, smaller Liberal component deciding to leave.

        • bluedog

          Important points. The issue then becomes one in which the representation of the Traditionalists/conservatives must prevail over that of the Liberals. One’s perception is that the Liberals are far better at the long march through the institution.

  • Inspector General

    “It would be deeply appreciated if those who are tempted to use this post to berate female clergy (or those who support them) wouldn’t do so. Really, don’t. That’s a ‘Do Not’.”

    Well, alright Cranmer, as you politely asked – but don’t think this isn’t going to be published…

    Women are the nurturers of humanity. A child’s first forgiving will be from a woman. It is the woman who cleans up after her child when he / she has messed, physically or otherwise. Women are thus used to lower standards than men. Much lower standards. Further, women are the great compromisers, again from their nurturing and feminine role. Unable to obtain what they want by physical overbearing (usually, although it is not unknown for the female of the species to be much larger than the male), she rarely gets 100% satisfaction in what she wants, and thus have to make do with lesser. In other words, they compromise.

    Same Sex Relations are a compromise, are they not. Strictly speaking, it isn’t even sex. Merely arousal of the rude (red) areas of the flesh…

    So there you have it, chaps. Standards are being eroded and thus the faith is being eroded. Because woman is being exactly what she is programmed to be – a woman. And there is no man or woman on this site who can accuse the Inspector of being wrong on this matter…

    Now, it is up to Anglicanism itself to ponder on whether this unhappy state of affairs not only continues, but thrives and eventually overwhelms in everything thereof…

    • Cressida de Nova

      Women by nature are nurturers and compassionate. Men by nature are not. The reason I am opposed to them being employed in professions such as nursing, geriatric nursing and infants teaching . Women are closer to Jesus and more women will be saved than men.

      • Anton

        Correct until your last sentence, “Women are closer to Jesus”, which is Christian feminist nonsense.

      • len

        That is irrational also sexist. .Some men are compassionate and caring , some women are not…

      • chefofsinners

        What is true of men and women in general is not necessarily true of specific individuals. Some men will make better infant teachers than some women. Myra Hindley springs to mind.

        “Women are closer to Jesus”.
        Tell that to a feminist atheist and you might end up a lot closer to Jesus yourself.

      • In Genesis 1:26-7, both male and female are made in the image of God. Jesus, the perfect person, was compassionate and nurturing and displayed many qualities associated with women. From a study of the Gospel, it is clear that Jesus Christ possessed great sensitivity and He navigated a wide territory of emotions in the time He spent with both the downtrodden and the oppressor, modelling an ability of both boldness and gentleness, outrage and compassion, vulnerability and tenacity.

        “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

        Jesus was also very aware of the life of women. He knows that women keep their treasures in boxes, and that they light a lamp at dusk (Matthew 6,19-21 and 5,15-16). He speaks of children playing in the market place and of girls waiting for the bridegroom at a wedding (Matthew 11,16-19 and 25,1-13). He often tells his parables in pairs, with a story about a woman running parallel to a story about a man:

        When the woman who suffered of a flow of blood touched Jesus from behind, ‘he perceived in himself that power had gone forth from him’ (Mark 5,21-43).

        The Syro-Phoenician woman pleaded with Jesus to drive the demon from her daughter. Jesus initially refused. However, the woman argues with him; and Jesus grants her request (Mark 7,24-30).

        In the house of Mary and Martha Jesus meets a woman who, like the men who sit at his feet, wants to understand Him. Jesus is impressed by this and encourages this (Luke 10,38-42).

        Jesus also responded to the silent gestures of women: the repentant prostitute who poured ointment on his feet, the widow of Nain who walked behind the bier of her dead son, the woman who was bent double with arthritis, the widow in the Temple who put two small coins in the offering box, and the women of Jerusalem who wept as they saw Jesus carrying his cross (Luke 7,36-50; 7,11-17; 13,10-17; 21,1-4 and 23,27-31).

  • Shadrach Fire

    What can one say without saying anything.
    Perhaps the Biblical statement that women should stay silent in the church has more of a bearing today than in olden times. What is it about career women that they have to be so out spoken and out of kilter with the general populace.

  • Dominic Stockford

    I await the day when “the House of Bishops approaches parity between the sexes” with utter horror.

  • David

    The C of E is now a very strange organisation.

    One the one hand there are local churches teaching the Bible to slowly growing congregations. Their laity tend to worship very regularly, most weekly. Church life is important to them. All the churches that I know of have male leadership. Occasionally such churches plant new Bible following churches nearby, and they too grow. Most are financially reasonably strong, or better. Vicars usually care for just the one congregation, allowing them sufficient time and energies to start and maintain new initiatives, as well as pastoral work. This must be a rewarding pattern of work. These churches tend to have mission links abroad, apart from any that their diocese may support.

    Then there are the far greater number of local churches that have liberal leadership, led by either men or women. I know of none that are growing. They struggle with their finances. The demography of their laity makes even standing still challenging. Energies tend to be focussed on the maintenance of the roof, vital repairs to the building or grounds and getting in sufficient funds. Clergy are under great pressures of time, literally dashing from one church to another in the adjoining parishes, which must be exhausting. Many are very dedicated but maintaining morale must be difficult. Unsurprisingly, few young ordinands apply for vacancies.

    Some anticipate a split. I think that this event has a considerably lower probability than 50%. By education, professional training and my nature I always ponder various “futures”, short, medium and long term. Everything suggests to me that the organisation will continue shrinking in overall numbers, probably steeply, but with the proportion of Bible following clergy and laity continuing to increase.

    Then there’s the bishops. Overwhelmingly they are liberal. With female bishops now arriving, support for ever more liberal stances can only increase. As with the UK’s politics, the space between top and the bottom can only increase. Apologies for a rather long comment.

    • 1642+5thMonarchy

      Bang on analysis David.

      • David

        Thank you.

    • Watchman

      Nothing for which to apologise. I’m sure many of us recognise the situation you describe. It is the health of the local ekklesia as the Body of Christ which will win souls whilst the hierarchy embarrass us all.

      • David

        Exactly.

    • carl jacobs

      Eventually Liberal bishops will start to push liberal vicars onto conservative parishes. So these parishes will have a choice:

      1. Accept the liberal vicar.
      2. Depart the CoE.

      The decline of liberal parishes will not lead to a revival in the CoE. The leadership is too liberal to allow it.

      • David

        That is nonsense because you don’t know how the system works.
        Bishops cannot force a new unsuitable vicar onto a parish as legally the power rests with the parishes. Conservative parishes always contain a number of strong minded, theologically trained lay assistants who would lead the rest of the flock to resist any bishop that tries to overstep their authority.
        There are more sufficient conservative vicars to serve the growing number of conservative parishes.
        Liberal bishops, sensing the decline in numbers and income in their dioceses, often accept and encourage conservative parishes and vicars, as a pragmatic necessity.
        You seem determined to push the line that a turn around in the C of E is impossible.

        • William Lewis

          Well said.

        • carl jacobs

          You seem determined to push the line that a turn around in the C of E is impossible.

          Yes. That’s because I’ve seen it happen before. When a rock is dropped from an airplane it follows a very predictable trajectory. It will deviate slightly down track and crosstrack. What it will never do is return to the aircraft.

          I have infinite faith in the capacity of men to use, manipulate, avoid, change and simply ignore those rules that impede the achievement of their ideological objectives. You say “Nonsense” and yet I can show you fields scattered with the remains of Episcopal priests who likewise said “Nonsense! The rules don’t allow it.” Leadership controls the rules.

          Ask anyone in TEC leadership and they will tell you the trouble in TEC was caused by rebellious clergy. They see laity as objects to be manipulated. They believe that there would have been no civil war in TEC if conservative clergy hadn’t led it. Do you think that lesson will go unlearned?

          The leadership in the CoE is liberal. Wait ten years. You haven’t seen liberal yet. And you also haven’t seen the extent to which liberal religionists will go – even to their own financial detriment – to achieve their objectives.

          You have no idea what is coming. The longer you remain in that circumstance the more vulnerable you become. Time is not on your side. Act or not. Just remember. The rock eventually hits the ground.

          • David

            Your knowledge of the US situation is better than mine, though I have monitored much of what has appeared here. Therefore I’m partly aware of those areas of concern you point towards.
            Essentially your arguments rests upon an assumption, the premise that two points, the existing situation, and future forces, will both closely track the US example. Yet the UK situation is different in many ways to the US one.
            As a understand it, the Episcopalians comprised a large percentage of Anglo-Catholics in the conservative camp, whereas we do not.
            Many, probably all, conservatives ministers, church leaders, are aware of the dangers from the liberal “leadership”, already displayed by the US example.
            Also since the Episcopalians went distinctly heterodox, GAFCON has risen to the challenge, offering alternative oversight and overall encouragement. So we are not alone.
            Given that the UK and the US are in many ways, very different cultures, your assumption is a very big one. Everyone is of course keeping the situation under detailed observation, with unceasing efforts from the conservative side to uphold and proclaim the Biblical position.

          • William Lewis

            Your warnings are well taken, Carl, and forwarned is forearmed, so perhaps the trajectory may not match the first, second time around.

          • bluedog

            Complacency is fatal. Dangerous to simply dismiss Carl’s warnings on the basis that it can’t happen here. The Liberal objective is to ensure that it does happen here.

          • William Lewis

            Agreed. One cannot be in any doubt that this is a fight that will not simply go away.

        • bluedog

          Will ++ Welby lead the opposition to Liberal encroachment?

          • David

            In a word blue dog, No.
            His background is conservative Biblical, but he has wobbled, big time.
            He is a creature of liberal establishment and 21C culture.

          • bluedog

            Agreed. ++ Welby would have learned his Christianity from the late Canon Felix Farebrother, whose ministry one remembers well. Farebrother was a solid Evangelical, straight down the middle in terms of High Church-Low Church inclination. There seems little doubt that Welby has long departed from Farebrother’s Anglicanism, and of course, his selection by Cameron speaks volumes.

          • David

            Totally agreed !

      • William Lewis

        A Bishop cannot push a vicar onto a parish.

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Your Grace

    The statistically significant voting pattern amongst the female clergy, appears irrational.

    Given they believe that sex (male and female) is irrelevant to the priesthood, and therefore logically sexual orientation and transgender; why vote against a report that is a further step in that direction?

    Their vote fails to make rational sense as they have stripped out ‘maximum freedom’ and endorsed the traditional position.

    • chefofsinners

      Women? Being irrational? Surely not…

      • magnolia

        Straight out of 1950s Hollywood where the “cure” for a hysterical women (aka saying something the hero didn’t comprehend) was a good slap on the face, in an industry where many gay men presided.

        • chefofsinners

          Come off it, Mags. The woman’s unpredictability is one of her glories. Like men’s insensitivity.

  • len

    The woman(Eve) was deceived, Adam was not.
    It is the simplicity of this statement (with all the undertones) that is presented in scripture.This is not to denigrate women or to elevate men but the sexes are different in make up(in more than the obvious ways.)
    Of course men too can be deceived (and those following false religions testify to this fact)but this is the order God chose and if we try and change what God has ordained we will bear the responsibility for doing so.

  • Anton

    I am not sure that I understand his Grace’s thinking in posting the gender breakdown of the stats and then asking people not to use it to berate female clergy. If “berate” means “deliberately aim to give insult” then I have no problem in complying. If it means “speak the truth as best you understand it, but do not give offence” then I find a tension between the two components of the request. For it is clear from 1 Tim 2&3 that church leadership is to be male, and that the reasons run right back to Adam and Eve and are not culturally variable. In that case, I am not surprised that persons in disobedience to one part of scripture are more likely in disobedience to another, as here.

  • Trevor Phillips on Ch 4now with “Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?” Interesting.

    • Anton

      No it hasn’t. It always was mad.

      • Manfarang

        It’s from the USA. The land of pet rocks, streaking and root beer.

        • The Explorer

          It was all dreamed up in Germany. And what’s wrong with a pet Rock?

          • Manfarang

            The Frankfurt school moved to Columbia University in 1934. I studied a lot of this stuff in the 1960s and never once heard the term “politically correct”. I first heard the term being used by my American colleagues in more recent years. The phrase was coined by American right wing ideologues.
            What’s wrong with a dead parrot?

          • Pubcrawler

            Then you stopped studying it too early. It gained currency among left-wing/feminist writers in the 1970s.

          • Manfarang

            Some writers in America. According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: “Not very ‘politically correct’, Comrade!”
            It was common currency by the early 1990s amongst the Americans.
            I like the phrase “off the wall” myself.

          • A mix of ethnography, cannabis and LSD, no doubt..

          • Manfarang

            An ethnomethodological conclusion they would undoubtedly agree with.

          • Pubcrawler

            So, not coined by American right wing ideologues after all, then.

          • Manfarang

            Given a new meaning by American right wing ideologues in the context of their construct of ” Cultural Marxism”.

          • The Explorer

            It moved to Columbia, but it was dreamed up in Frankfurt. The term politically incorrect was used in Frankfurt to describe the workers who sided with their own nations rather than each other in WW1.

          • Manfarang

            If the term was dreamed up in Frankfurt then people would be using a German word as they do of other terms such as Weltanschauung.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Quite — saw this after my similar post!

    • Inspector General

      Thanks Marie. Have it on hold just now. The Inspector has changed his mind about Trevor Phillips. He now has the maturity and wisdom with which he can now be listened to. Well done him!

      • Anton

        He absorbed an awful lot of taxpayers’ money and did an awful lot of damage on the way.

        • Inspector General

          Well, he did start out with the proverbial chip…

    • betteroffoutofit

      Of course, some of us never though it was sane ….

    • IanCad

      Thanks Marie; have just watched it. Quite encouraging and contains the shoots of commonsense.

  • chefofsinners

    It is difficult to read anything into a vote where at least one of the bishops pushed the wrong button, and where different factions voted yea or nay for wildly differing reasons.
    The whole thing is a bit of a Cocksworth. A Church of England classic, where three years and lots of money have been spent achieving the square root of diddly squat.

  • maigemu

    Not a surprise as a result of the ordination of women.

  • Jill

    Why would anybody be surprised by this? It was well-documented in the wide-ranging ‘Mind of Anglicans’ survey of 1992 that ordained women (and their supporters) had a much higher tolerance of homosexuality – along with other moral issues such as divorce, abortion and euthanasia – than their male counterparts. Here is a little clip from a review:

    ‘Finally we asked two questions on homosexuality. The first was simply whether practising homosexuals should be ordained as priests.

    Overall about one-third of clergy thought they should be (31%). Lay support was much lower at 19%.

    However in gender break down only 29% male clergy agreed with homosexual priests while 48% of female clergy did. The familiar divide appeared across the various groupings. Only 4% of Evangelical clergy agreed with practising homosexual clergy while 18% of Forward in Faith priests accepted
    them.

    When we move to the liberal clergy the figures go into reverse. Only 20% of Af/Caths, 25% WATCH and 8% MCPU disagree with practising homosexual clergy. The LGCM support was surprisingly low at 96%.’

    http://trushare.com/88SEP02/SE02SURV.htm

  • PessimisticPurple

    Why are “catholic-minded” Anglicans (and I think that should be a capital C) still Anglican at all?

    • Manfarang

      For the same reason as “liberal-minded” Catholics are still Catholic.

  • prompteetsincere

    Since the Prime Deceiver is neither male nor female, such it be wot won it.
    +
    But anyone who understands in The Scriptures something other than that is intended by them is deceived, although they do not lie. However,…if he is deceived in an interpretation that builds up charity, which is the end of the Commandments. he is deceived in the same way as one who leaves a road by mistake who passes through field to the same place toward which the road itself leads. But he is to be corrected and shown that it is more useful not to leave The Road, lest the habit of deviating force him to take a crossroad or a perverse way.
    St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, I, 36.