Monday, February 11, 2013

Isn't it time we elected eight senior Tories to the House of Bishops?

There has been some negative reaction to the proposal for the House of Bishops of the General Synod to admit senior female clergy to attend and speak at its meetings. This overturns centuries of tradition of male headship: eight women will be elected and will contribute to the Episcopate until such time as the Church permits female bishops. Like women of old, they can gossip, moan and drink tea, but will be denied the vote.

So, we await the Church of England’s Emmeline Pankhurst. Hopefully, the episcopal franchise will be extended this time without civil disobedience – we don’t want female archdeacons and deans smashing stained-glass windows, chaining themselves to the font or throwing themselves in front of the Supreme Governor’s horse. Perhaps the Church awaits a latter-day Margaret Thatcher rather than its Emmeline Pankhurst: we need a politician-theologian, not a luddite-suffragette.

But the advent of these eight female ‘participant observers’ raises certain questions:

Firstly, His Grace is delighted that the Working Group reads His Grace’s blog, for it was he who first suggested moving towards elections. These eight women will join the seven elected suffragan bishops. This amounts to a welcome enhanced democracy which paves the way for greater accountability.

Secondly, it has been decided that until such time as there are six female members of the House of Bishops, these eight will have the right to attend and speak at meetings. This is evidently quota mentality, so, why six, and not parity?

Thirdly, if these eight elected female deans and archdeacons are supplanted by six appointed bishops, the House of Bishops will be seen to be regressive. Which group has the greater episcopal legitimacy – those elected by the laity or those appointed by the oligarchy?

Fourthly, if the elected eight are to remain in situ until the appointed six are confirmed and enthroned, the maths gets a little awkward, for when there are five women bishops the female contingent of their House of Bishops will be 13. The appointment of just one more female bishop will then cause a drop in their number, as the elected eight become redundant. It is most unlikely that the equality-obsessives will put up with this, for what manner of equality is it which countenances a fall of 61 per cent in the female leadership quota? Surely it is preferable to have 13 women among 47 men (21.6%), rather than just six among 46 (11.5%), even if that means sacrificing one vote. Indeed, this mathematical reality becomes a deterrent to appointing the sixth female bishop, for 5+8 is greater than 6+0.

Fifthly, His Grace would like to know why the Church of England is prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate the gender obsession of society but not the sexuality obsession? Seriously, why is there not a transformative movement to elect eight gay and lesbian (or bisexual and transgendered) participant observers to the House of Bishops? Is it because the feminine perspective will now have representation on the Episcopate? Is it because gays and lesbians would contribute nothing more than the elected women? Is it because the gays are already present, on the Episcopate, but closeted? If so, shouldn’t we be looking at appointing at least one lesbian to the elected eight? Surely a quota of (at least) one in eight is necessary to ensure justice?

But why stop there?

The absence of women and gays in the Episcopate is not the most chronic ecclesio-theological offence in the Church of England. Surely it is time to elect eight Conservative participant observers to the House of Bishops in order to balance the Labour-supporting, Guardian-reading, muesli-eating, mint-tea-drinking, lefty-liberal Christian Socialists who have reigned for almost a century, reshaping orthodoxy, redefining mission and managing inexorable decline. And let us make sure that these eight Conservatives are proper Tories and remain in situ until such time as there are six Conservative bishops.

Only then will justice begin to flow like a river.


Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

His Grace asked

"His Grace would like to know why the Church of England is prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate the gender obsession of society but not the sexuality obsession? " Come, come now.."Slowly, slowly catchee monkey." as they said!! *Huge Chortles*

E S Blofeld

11 February 2013 at 11:15  
Blogger Flossie said...

His Grace would like to know why the Church of England is prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate the gender obsession of society but not the sexuality obsession.

You're not the only one to be wondering that, YG!

But one step at a time! It will arrive soon enough once the women bishops thingy is in the bag (if not before).

11 February 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Simple answer - make sure the women bishops are drawn from lesbian and transgendered membership and 'out' one or two homosexual bishops (all the above being celibate, of course).

What a dog's dinner of political correctness!

11 February 2013 at 14:13  
Blogger Michael Gollop SSC said...

Eight senior 'proper Tories?' You mean actual conservatives? Good luck with that, your Grace.

11 February 2013 at 15:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Why can't Anglican feminists just accept that they must submit in the bedroom for a successful synthesis?

11 February 2013 at 15:15  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

And Brother Ivo thought he was putting the cat amongst the pigeons......

11 February 2013 at 15:29  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

And Brother Ivo thought he was putting the cat amongst the pigeons......

11 February 2013 at 15:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gentlemen. Just 8 places for the numerous career minded over educated ambitious ‘personal self fulfilment’ grasping women who, on occasion, also like to think they are priests ???

Madness, all of it. It is going to get bloody messy as they fight each other to be a princess of the church....

11 February 2013 at 16:01  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 February 2013 at 16:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

I can't see any harm in gay or transgendered Bishops, if they are single or not having sex.

11 February 2013 at 16:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, the transgendered are troubled people. You really want to let them lick their wounds in peace, so to speak, not champion them as some kind of cultural ideal...

Rather sick of you, you know...

11 February 2013 at 17:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Well I would say, anyone who thinks they are born in the wrong body and is willing to have their most sensitive parts "changed", deserve a lot more than disgust. Perhaps sympathy and prayer ?

11 February 2013 at 17:29  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry: Re-posting corrected submission of 16:16.

Your Grace: I was surprised at our gentleman, Mr. Singh!

"Submission"? Oh well. I guess he may be right in terms of the feminazi view. They probably deign to acknowledge love only in polarities of domination/submission. That explains their expertise in "harassment" - which is all about power.

And the pattern is well in keeping with our status in relation to the euSSR.

Furthermore, as I posted on the other strand, Dr. Richard North and Christopher Booker do outstanding work in teaching us how Chercher le blue and yellow rag when we need to recognise the causes that drive our dissensions and fragmentation! In the Telegraph, Booker provides a photo and the following facts on the europower as a gender-trender:
"The 47 members of the Council of Europe during the Council of Europe Conference in Brighton last year. In March 2010, ministers from the countries agreed on 'measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity...' "

Talk about Divide and Conquer -- why, we can't even be sure that they deign to recognise the CoE as - well - the CoE.

11 February 2013 at 17:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah dear thing, around 9 in 10 women believe they were born in the wrong body, according to cosmetic surgery polls in women's magazines, so one is informed.

11 February 2013 at 17:34  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Well, I don't know about the polls in girl's magazines * , but anyone who is willing to have surgery, which cannot be undone, means that there has to be something there? What bloke wants to go without his bits and what woman wants to go without her 'assets' (certainly not me!).

No, I have nothing but deep understanding for those people who do have surgical procedures because of that.

*what are you doing reading women's mags anyway- I can read guy's mags because I am a Leso and get away with it - LOL- but what's your excuse?

11 February 2013 at 17:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah , years ago, transgender surgery was so rare, it made the press, albeit with the troubled soul having anonymity if desired. Now it’s almost de rigueur for the trendy homosexual who wants a little more, or less, as the case may be. Tempted ?

11 February 2013 at 17:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Well I don't know about that- what I do know is that I was born as a girl and am happy to be so- albeit gay.

But in defence of people who are transgendered, if you are prepared to change yourself via a way of surgery that cannot be changed, then I think there must be something to transgender.

And, although Dodo is a Catholic I am sure that the professional part of him as a medical practitioner, that you have to go through a LOT of Psychiatry and Psychology to have Sex reassignment surgery.

11 February 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger Telfs said...

YG, will the HoB be electing 8 Conservative Evangelicals to similar position until the time when there are 6 Con Evo Bishops? I doubt it. Equality for some but continued discrimination for others.

11 February 2013 at 19:27  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Hannah: "Well I would say, anyone who thinks they are born in the wrong body and is willing to have their most sensitive parts "changed", deserve a lot more than disgust. Perhaps sympathy and prayer ?"

My most sympathy and my quickest physical blade to redo the error nature had mistakenly befallen upon them.

Travestite and homosexual priestcraft?

My most sympathy and my quickest spiritual blade to redo the error nurture had mistakenly befallen upon them.

11 February 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, the Inspector follows Pink News. As he has said before, a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Did you know that of the LGBT ‘alliance’, there are many LG who loathe T. Some days ago, they featured a story of a transgender being thrown out of the ladies lavatory by two indignant genuine female students, at a Canadian University. It prompted a response from a T to his / her LG forced compatriots to the effect of...

“You gays have it comparatively good. Some of us don’t even know where the next piss is going to take place”

11 February 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Good for you for reading 'Pink News'; personally I prefer to read 'the Astronomy and Astrophysics Review', but each to his own.

Please note that just because 'Pink News' is a gay paper, does not mean that ALL gay people subscribe to the editorial or the comments contained therein as if (to quote Dodo) gay people are mindless Cyborgs like Star Trek's 'the borg'.

I think that you will find that genuine "T's" who have had a surgical operation to change themselves into men or women don't do so because of a lifestyle choice .

Perhaps I should put this another way- as a bloke you wouldn't voluntarily agree for the parts between your legs to be surgically removed, now would you?

Yet male 'T's' do just that - because they believe themselves to be women born into men's bodies. Just the same as I couldn't contemplate the cutting of my Nice gazungas.

I think that you have to approach these people with kindness, love and the respect they deserve.

11 February 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, you must ask yourself this. Has a loving God condemned some of us to need radical surgery to fulfil ourselves in his creation ? And here really is the BIG question. Are those that undergo it REALLY any happier in themselves ?

11 February 2013 at 23:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Why ask those questions of me? Perhaps you need to ask these questions of Dodo, Old Jim, Albert or failing that,your local Parish Priest for an answer- rather than an Orthodox gay Jewish baalat teshuva?

11 February 2013 at 23:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, you sweet thing, remember this. If you ask searching questions, you are likely to get answers you can’t deal with...

12 February 2013 at 00:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Oh I can cope with answers, but to do a Kinderling on you, what about the question?!

12 February 2013 at 00:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Imagine the following :

Inspector tours across Europe to convince everyone of his political view, which reminds me of a song -

"Let's hear it for the Inspector Tour!"

'Bad news from Rome; he met with the Pope- he only got a rosary, a kindly word- I wouldn't say the Holy Father gave him the bird-
papal decorations, never a hope!'


12 February 2013 at 01:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


I could never sanction sexual realignment surgery. Sadly, for some, we have to play the hand we're dealt by God. If there is a disparity between sex and gender, in the mind of an individual, then that's a cross the person has to bear.

Personally, I have great sympathy with anyone who is troubled by their gender or sexuality. However, I do not believe we should seek through surgery and drugs to rectify a perceived 'mistake' by nature.

And you would be surprised at the quality of assessments in this field. There is no 'objective' science in these matters. Morality and values do influence professional 'opinion'.

12 February 2013 at 01:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

non mouse at 16.16

It is the likes of Brother Ivo and their ideology that have turned my hand to ‘this wretched business’.

The Bishop of Liverpool states (and Brother Ibo follows him):

‘In chapter 11 Paul writes, “I want you to understand that …. the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ”.

‘Yet I’ve come to see that to believe “God is the head of Christ” cannot mean that Christ is subordinate to God or that Christ has less authority than God. Otherwise we would be denying the full divinity of Jesus. Therefore, headship in this verse cannot mean that a woman is subordinate to man or has less authority than a man.’

‘What the equality for women bishops’ demands is for us to accept the following: that the Son because He obeyed His Father’s will, must have an inferior nature; the Bible evidences that the Son carried out His Father’s commands – therefore, presumably, He cannot be fully God.


12 February 2013 at 07:30  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you, Mr. Singh (07:30)- I believe I understand. Yes, they are daft.

They also obsess over earthly power and take Ephesians 5:30 out of context. In doing so, they ignore, for example: Paul’s exhortation to wisdom (15-17); his specific of “Submitting yourselves to one to another in the fear of God” (21); and the relation of consubstantiation (Father/Christ) to Genesis 2:23*; --- to say nothing of the mission of the Church and the subtlety of the serpent.

Charlotte Bronte, on the other hand, wasn't driven to promote worldly power. In Jane Eyre, she ultimately applies the [consubstantial] Christ-Father/Church image to St. John’s mission (he’s interestingly named).

That decision sorted, a reader can derive insight from the explicit parallel of Genesis 2:23 with the Jane/Rochester relationship. Even through all their trials and battles, these two function as a unit. Finally, they become aware of complementing each other according to strengths and needs, which the reader may interpret both literally and metaphorically.
*Adam says of Eve: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.” The Jane Eyre citation and parallel are in chapters 35-38.

13 February 2013 at 04:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older