A vote is never final unless and until the Left gets what it wants.
Only 3 Bishops against! Are you familiar with any of them? They seem to be brave men. They will get hammered in the media for this.
Calhoun's theory on the expansion of suffrage was that politicians couldn't afford to risk alienating their future constituents. In this case, these Bishops know that it will doom their careers when the inevitable happens and it is discovered that they were on the wrong side of history.Holy Mother Church will keep a seat warm for you. ;)
@JP - We fight the long defeat. But this is a victory. And a surprise victory. The CoE stood on the brink of the precipice but did not jump. It still stands on the brink of the precipice, but it has not jumped. If you doubt the significance, then just observe the response of the forces of darkness - wailing and gnashing of teeth hardly begins to describe it. @AT - it was a secret ballot - but I presume the 'anti' Bishops spoke in the debate, which I didn't follow closely since I was convinced the motion would pass. I understand the Bishop of London (third in seniority) may have been one of them, but I don't really know.
By having a failed vote, they know they need to up the brainwashing effort, but they know they're almost there. One last major push ought to do it.I'd love to have a Screwtape analysis of this vote. And of voting. In churches, of all places!
Speaking of liberals in the Church of England--but I repeat myself--are vampires a kind of zombie, or are zombies a kind of vampire? Or are they cousins?
"less than half of laity in favour"Actually, it is very nearly two-thirds of laity in favour. 132 out of a total 206 is 64%, a hair's breadth short of two thirds. Five or six more laity in favour would've carried it.In favourLaity: 132AgainstLaity: 74
@JB - indeed, you are right - I was looking at the ratios in terms of being approximately ten to one; three to one; and two to one. Shall fix.
@CO - I'm pretty sure they are different; Vampires are aggressively predatory by nature, but under Leftism even the Zombies have become dangerous.
Who owns the church? I,m asking because I,,m wondering whether the English should have a say.
PS. Why did the Liberals fail? This is interesting. It was, in fact, the typical over-reach and impatience of evil. 1. They would not wait until they were sure of winning. Five years is an eyeblink in the history of Christianity, but a long time in a career - and these are careerists. 2. They believed that they would win - they believed that the opposition would be cowed by the massive media campaign in support of the Liberals. 3. Because they believed they would win, they made no concessions at all to the opposition - they wanted them utterly crushed and humiliated so that they would either have to submit or leave the church. 4. Why did they make no concessions? Because the concessions which would have won Liberals the vote (easily) meant that sincere and devout Catholics, Prayer Book Anglicans and Evangelicals within the Church of England needed alternative Episcopal supervision - that it they wanted to be under the authority of real Bishops. Why was this unacceptable? Simple - it would have *hurt the feelings* of the new priestess 'bishops'. This was the basis of the whole campain. If there were not 'women bishops' then this would hurt the feelings of the already existing priestesses, and if the new 'bishops' were not exactly the same as existing bishops, then this would hurt their feelings. 5. What is the Leftist response to the rejection vote in today's media? Headline photographs of priestesses looking tearful - so that proves it. The nasty real Christians have indeed hurt their feelings. 6. It may seem (literally) incredible that the future of a centuries old church should be dictated by the primary imperative to avoid hurting the feelings of professional career women - but that is in fact the primary reason behind liberalization. New Leftism, political correctness encapsulated. And an excellent example of Antichrist at work - in which a good motivation (i.e. avoiding inflicting hurt on people - which is indeed a good motivation) is harnessed in the service of evil: the subversion, inversion and destruction of a major Christian church.
It may seem (literally) incredible that the future of a centuries old church should be dictated by the primary imperative to avoid hurting the feelings of professional career womenIt would not seem incredible to anyone who observed that the effectiveness and the future of a centuries-old army and navy were dictated by the primary imperative to avoid hurting the feelings of professional career women.
Here in the US, gay "marriage" was 0 for 32 at the ballot box, until it wasn't anymore. It may never lose again. That's how these things work.
@thorshammer - I think the Church of England pretty much owns itself.But I don't see why - in principle - non-Christians should have any say in it (despite the actual fact that non-Christians manifestly already run it - as can be seen from the voting patterns of Bishops and other clergy). @JP. Yes, and you could add all major societal functional systems. @josh - Yes, this was just a battle, not the war - not by a long chalk. But it's a good while since even a battle was won in the CoE.And very clearly the Liberals wanted to win this, expected to win this - and if/ when they reverse the decision it will have to be be that much more obvious what they are up-to.
It may seem (literally) incredible that the future of a centuries old church should be dictated by the primary imperative to avoid hurting the feelings of professional career women - but that is in fact the primary reason behind liberalization. When feelings are more important than facts, you know that you are living during the decline of your civilization.Now, our first commandment is "Thou shalt not hurt women's feelings"I guess Puritans made a mistake when they rejected Virgin Mary. Without a perfect woman to look up to, they have ended up worshiping normal women as if they were goddesses.This book explains the impact of feminism in the Church very well:http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Mistake-Radical-Feminism-Culture/dp/1581345704
@I - Leon J Podles The Church Impotent has a lot of important analyses and facts, and is available online:http://www.podles.org/church-impotent.htm
Thank you, Bruce. I have read them both. The Church Impotent is wider because it shows the historical roots of feminization of Christianity. I would have preferred a deeper treatment of the crisis of the XII century where this feminization took place for the first time but it is a good book."The feminist mistake" (written by a woman) focus on the 70s and 80s. I think the most enlightening lesson is that every feminist movement inside the (evangelical) Church has ended up being radical even if it has begun being moderate, reasonable and even innocent. So you see a movement of conservative women who aimed to achieve more participation of women in the Church (for example, in prayer groups), but it had a completely orthodox view. You fast forward fifteen years. And this movement has become a movement where dogma has been rejected and Christianity has been replaced by a New Age-y worshiping of the "inner goddess every woman has" and has exercises to improve your sexual experiences and what-not.The book tells the story of how all the feminists in Church have ended up rejecting Christianity and embrace a matriarchal pseudo-religion. You can't serve two masters.
@I - Thanks for that summary - the thesis sounds very plausible to me...!
Above I said: "6. It may seem (literally) incredible that the future of a centuries old church should be dictated by the primary imperative to avoid hurting the feelings of professional career women - but that is in fact the primary reason behind liberalization. "Today I read (excerpted) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9700520/Reputation-of-Church-damaged-by-decision-on-women-bishops.html"Speaking at his Diocesan Synod in Warmsworth, near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, on Saturday, Dr Steven Croft .. added that he had been “deeply saddened”..."Dr Croft said he had spoken and corresponded with a large number of people since Tuesday evening, and such was the degree of hurt and anger that “a significant number have talked of resignation and withdrawal – from their posts..."Many, I know, feel bruised by this decision not because they want to be bishops but because they feel their own ministries as priests and deacons are again called into question...Some supporters of reform were reduced to tears.Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke of his “deep personal sadnessand the Right Reverend Justin Welby, who will succeed him at the end of the year, called it a “very grim day”.David Cameron added to the controversy on Wednesday when he told the Commons that he was “very sad” ...*SO, the CoE has been reduced to a veritable orgy of sadness and hurt feelings. How sad, how hurtful some people can be - merely because they refuse to reject two thousand years of Christian tradition, scriptural instruction, and the unanimous traditional interpretation of scriptural instruction.*For any real Christian capable of elementary reflection and reliant upon either or both of the twin pillars of tradition and scripture (and obviously these people cannot deploy the third pillar: which is reason) , this issue is about as much of a no brainer as there is in Christianity. What can one say?http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/this-is-your-brain-this-is-your-brain.html
Correction - when I wrote "I understand the Bishop of London (third in seniority)" I made an inexplicable mistake - since it is Durham which is third in seniority (after Canterbury and York), and London fourth. As someone who lived nextdoor to Durham Cathedral (in the castle) for a year I can't believe I wrote this!