More on women bishops in England

from the Guardian

The Church of England was thrown into turmoil last night over the issue of women bishops, as it rejected proposals that would have accommodated clergy strongly opposed to the historic change.

In an emotional, sometimes bitter debate lasting more than seven hours, the General Synod voted against introducing separate structures and "superbishops", to oversee parishes opposed to women bishops, because they were seen as amounting to institutionalised discrimination.

Instead, the 468 members narrowly agreed to the idea of introducing a national statutory code of practice, throwing out all compromises that would have appeased opponents of women bishops.

The Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt, condemned the final vote, taken after amendments had been tabled and rejected, as "mean-spirited and short-sighted". "The manifest majority was profoundly short-sighted. At every point it could have offered reassurances, and it did not do that," he said.

He echoed the sentiments of the Bishop of Dover, the Right Rev Stephen Venner, who was in tears after he made a speech, imploring the pro-women lobby to show some generosity.

"I feel ashamed. We have talked about wanting to give an honourable place for those who disagree, and we have turned down almost every realistic opportunity. We have not even been prepared to explore the possibility of fresh expressions of dioceses or bishops. And still we talk the talk of being inclusive.

Rowan Williams and John Sentamu wanted legislative protection rather than a voluntary code of practice. Sentamu supported plans for superbishops, while Williams wanted "more rather than less robust" legislation.

+

The BBC has Rowan Williams saying, 'I am deeply unhappy with any scheme or any solution to this which ends up, as it were, structurally humiliating women who might be nominated to the episcopate.'

+++

I am sorry. I just don't have much pity or sympathy here. To 'implore the pro-women lobby to show more generosity' as they are trying to toss out full inclusion in holy orders is an oxymoron to me.

There are the usual threats of people leaving the church over this. People have left the church before (or at least threatened to leave the church). Many return after testing the waters elsewhere. While it is grievous, sometimes it's nonsensical such as in the case of someone who left the church where I am because that person couldn't abide by Vermont's civil unions and worship with someone who was in one (actually the individual told me to my face that they didn't approve of women's ordination) only to go to another church where the congregation fully supports civil unions and has not only gays and lesbians up on the altar but also transgendered people, oh my. Having drawn the line in the sand, it is sometmes, hard to erase it, as in the case of this one person. I will welcome with joy that person back at the altar rail for communion has been incomplete these many years, but certainly I am not going to change my personhood nor can I.

If you look at the video up on the Guardian's site, you'll see nothing but men sitting up front. Once again, it's all about fear... fear of losing their power, fear of letting those icky women into positions greater than that of a doormat. Since we haven't sorted out women's ordination, we won't get around to resolving LGBT ordination. It's still all about patriarchy that just isn't dying easily.

Consider the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, who scolded the 75th General Convention at the hearing of the Special Committee for its move toward greater inclusion of LGBTs. And here, he supported super(flying) bishops to protect the Anglo-Catholics against women. (I don't get it since liturgically, theologically and even social issue-wise I am Anglo-Catholic, at least in the historical sense of the 19th century....) Who knows what he was saying as the photo was taken but it looks as though he is tearing out the non-existent hair he has on his head.

Bottom line: I am tired of people deciding what other people can and cannot do according to their very being. (Don't even bother reading the comments at the New York Times on their corresponding article. It's the usual tripe: Gene Robinson should resign; it's those egotistical liberals, it's all women's fault; it's all the gays' fault and on and on and on.) Get a grip and get on with life. There's work to be done.

Call me hot and bothered in Vermont.