I support both the ordination of women and their consecration as bishops. But I take issue with Bp. Morgan on the strangeness of there being no women bishops in a world that recognizes women's equality. First, it isn't about equality. I am no less equal before God because I do not have a miter. If this is all about empowering women, there are better ways to do it. If the conservatives are right and a woman can't be a bishop, we can say what words over them we like and they still won't be bishops, no matter how empowered they may feel. Part of the problem is that long ago the office of Shepherd of God's Flock got turned into Boss of God's Flock, so any group that is prevented from becoming Boss is going to feel disempowered. We could question why we think that power hunger, far from being a sin, is actually a good thing. The real question though is: is God calling women to episcopate in His Church? I would say yes.

I've lften wondered if the Supreme Governor of the Church of England can be a women why is it that women can't be Bishops. If the head of state can be a woman why can't a head of a dioces or a national church? Of course the queen isn't ordained but still she is titular head of the CofE. None of this makes sense in these times.

Robert Ian Williams has just rung me from the vote and it was lost by a narrow margin (3%) in the House of Clergy.

It must be remembered that this also happened when the first vote came on women priests here in Wales, the Bishops broke convention and a few Canons and reintroduced it immediately and it went through the second time.

Robert will doubtless tell more later when he completes his 4 hour drive back to the North!

He owes me £5

'bout blessed time! :-)

Sorry to say that the bill did not pass:

http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/bill_results.html

Sigh. God help us.

I visited the Governing Body out of interest to hear the debate.

The Archbishop of Wales was magnificent, so was the Bishop of Monmouth and the Bishop of St Asaph also spoke well. All the bench of bishops fought off the ammendment that would have institutionalised a provincial bishop, and a Church within a Church.

This was easily defeated. 71 to 41

The Bill was voted for by all the diocesan bishops 100 per cent.

The laity voted 52 for, 19 against with one abstention.

The clergy voted 27 yes and 18 against with one abstention. This is a much heavier defeat, than the first failure of the priests bill in 1994.

Some of the opponents said they would vote for women bishops if the Bishops gave assurances that a provincial bishop would be appointed. Archbishop Morgan refused to be drawn.

Anyway Wales has been saved a Church within a Church, which would have extended the discrimation against women to male clergy ordained by a woman bishop.

I am amazed how few women clergy are on the Governing body. It was a hollow victory for the opponents.

Simon I relayed the wrong voting vigures of the clergy to Martin Reynolds , hence the discrepency.

Royal Supremacy...yes the Queen is the ordinary of both the Archbishop of York and Canterbury...their appointment and jurisdiction comes from the Crown.

To clarify, my "'bout blessed time!" was about the proposed change, not the later defeat.

What Josh said. :-(

Robert Ian Wiliams is right to remind us of the pecking order in England!
But "Of course the queen isn't ordained" ..... hmmm, she very certainly was consecrated and the vestments she put on looked familiar!

What depressed me most of all was to see so many of my fellow gay priests in the "no" lobby - in fact all of the ones I knew!

Wales offers gay priests and their partners such a warm welcome but it doesn't mean that welcome runs on ......

Then to hear the Provincial Assistant bishop (flying sort) mumble rubbish about not wanting a "gay bishop" when we have had at least four in recent times and remembering his constituency is over 60% gay led ..... Lord have mercy !!!

Martin

"Then to hear the Provincial Assistant bishop (flying sort) mumble rubbish about not wanting a "gay bishop" when we have had at least four in recent times and remembering his constituency is over 60% gay led ..... Lord have mercy !!!"

Just some clarification please - what do you mean by "constituency" in this context?

thanks

Simon

"if the Supreme Governor of the Church of England can be a women why is it that women can't be Bishops"

Because, while her position is anomalous, the Queen is not a priest. First, I support the ordination of women, so the argument I am about to lay out is what I understand the issue to be. A bishop is THE priest in his/her diocese. Now the question is: can a woman fulfill the role of priest? Is there something in the nature of priesthood that means only men can be priests, like there is something in the nature of motherhood that means only a woman can be a mother. To suggest that I am somehow oppressed because I can't bear a child is nonsense. Well, so the argument goes, so it is with ordained women. It's not about rights, since no-one has the right to be a priest. It's not about empowerment either, since we don't empower people by pretending they are something they cannot be, we must empower what they actually ARE. To go back to my analogy, you can say I'm a mother all you want, but I'm a man, thus can't be one. I know some talk about "female headship" but that argument is so lame, some who make it try to bolster it by changing the definition of the Trinity (all the while claiming to be "orthodox")! I can't think of a more glaring example of female headship than the Queen, and they don't seem to mind HER. For the record, I believe that since the priest in the Mass represents the Incarnate God, it is His humanity, surely, not His masculinity, that is being represented. To say otherwise is to imply that the Incarnation is only salvific for slightly less than half the population. I think God has been calling women to sacerdotal roles in the Church for a long time, we just haven't wanted to hear Him.

Martin Reynolds wrote: “But "Of course the queen isn't ordained" ..... hmmm, she very certainly was consecrated and the vestments she put on looked familiar!”

So they did…

Emperor Constantine the Great once said, it is reported:'

"You are Bishops in the Church,
whereas I am Bishop in the World."

To the chagrin of Gregorius VIII of Rome the Emperor/King as Vicarius Christi remained the official theology/ecclesiology in East and West, well beyond the 1073 Dictatus papae ; = )

It may be argued that this was restated in the Reformation.

Hence the ongoing similarity of Imperial and Episcopal vestments...

I'm a little torn over the fact that the alternative oversight provision was defeated.

on one hand, the CoE has done it. I don't think to assume that alternative oversight provisions make any change in the rate at which the Anglican Communion and individual provinces are disintegrating, either positive or negative. ergo, if oversight provisions were the only way to get women consecrated, they should have been considered.

on the other hand, the don't consecrate folks are on the wrong side of history. women will be consecrated eventually, then best not to make provisions that would interrupt a church structure.

oh, well.

This "conservative" does not care if a bishop is a man or woman. It is not a conservative issue so much as it is an "catholic" issue. Personally, I don't think we need bishops at all, but that is a different subject all together.

Simon sorry not to respond to you earlier,

Some say that over two thirds of those clerics using the services of our flying bishop are gay. I am somewhat more conservative in my estimate.

We must catch up sometime

"I don't think we need bishops at all"

You being a conservative, I will assume that you believe the conservative side is defending traditional Christianity. If I am wrong, correct me, but if I am right, how do you square that belief with the above statement?

The idea that each theological opinion or prejudice can have its own bishop, is the awful legacy of Carey and Habgood in the Church of England. The Church in Wales has been wiser to decide that a Church within a church and a second class order of women bishops, and male and female clergy ordained by her is totally unacceptable.

Would that the Church of England bishops had the same courage and convictions as the Welsh bishops.

For the same reason, Ford, that The Salvation Army, Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostals, Baptists, Quakers, etc., etc., don't need bishops. The world and the Christian faith can function quite well without them. The poor can be fed, prisoners, visited, the sick healed -- and all without the approval of a bishop.

I have just returned from the Parish Eucharist at a church at the head of remote valley in North Wales. There was deep resentment at the outcome of the vote, at how foolish the nay-saying clergy make the Church look and at the misogyny implicit in some of their comments.

"For the same reason, Ford, that The Salvation Army, Free Methodists, Wesleyans, Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostals, Baptists, Quakers, etc., etc., don't need bishops."

So why should a radical innovation from the Reformation era take precedence over the Tradition of the Church? I mean no disrespect to any of the groups you mentioned, but the Threefold Order has been a part of the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints" from the beginning. How anyone can claim we don't need it and still claim to be "orthodox" is beyond me.

Why should a radical innovation of some in the the post-modern church with respect to acceptance of same sex relationships take precedence over the Tradition of the church? The moral teaching of the church regarding the exclusivity of marriage between one man and one woman has been "part of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints from the beginning." In fact, the evolution of the episcopacy took several hundred years to develop. initially, "bishops" were simply the spiritual leaders of local congregations, much as priests or pastors are today. The role expanded to resemble the forms of civil government employed by the Roman empire.