BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Is the Church right to ordain women as bishops?

22:09 UK time, Saturday, 10 July 2010

The Church of England's ruling synod has decided that women should be ordained as bishops. What does this mean for the future of the Church?

The subject of ordaining women bishops has long been a contentious one for the Church, with many traditionalists opposing the move.

Traditionalists had sought exemptions from serving under women bishops, but were given minimal concessions, a move that may result in many leaving the Church.

Are you a clergyman or woman in the Church of England? What do you think of the Church's ruling? Are you worried about the possibility of a split in the Church?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 8

  • Comment number 1.

    To tell it plain and simple,
    I could not care any less,Whom or What the Church of England
    or any other church ordain as Bishops.

    Religions and Churches are Men made,if they where really given
    by an Almighty God,who would dare to make changes?

  • Comment number 2.

    No, I don't think women should be ordained. The more that a particular religious organisation gets free licence to be bigoted and sexist, the sooner they will be recognised as the antiquated institutions that they are, and hopefully all the populations of enlightened nations will turn away from them - not before time.

  • Comment number 3.

    This debate is indicative of how out of touch all the grass roots religious communities are with the real world. Archbishop Sentamu and Archbishop Williams are good men with a positive outlook, but the ridiculous, blind-folded conservatism of the ground troops in the C of E make it increasingly harder for us outside of religion to give them any respect. Her Majesty the Queen is head of the Church of England - yes? So why can't HER Church have female Bishops? Utterly absurd!

  • Comment number 4.

    Who cares?

  • Comment number 5.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 6.

    Personally, I don't know and don't expect the BBC HYS to enlighten me, however que: the 'church is irrelevant' and 'there is no God' posts, because some failed scientist called Richard Dawkins said so!

    This debate will be lost among those who argue for a God and those who don't!

  • Comment number 7.

    YES.

    I am a man and I think women have a lot to offer.

  • Comment number 8.

    yes...

  • Comment number 9.

    Why on earth does this matter surely they all worship the same God and does it matter whether or not they are C of E or RC. If believers feel women bishops are important then join another church. This still leaves more important differences such as transubstantiation, that is a more fundamental difference. What a waste of time these differences are when there are so many more pressing matters in the world

  • Comment number 10.

    Does it really matter?

    The Church of England is slowly dying and if women, who are usually the ones who like being involved in these silly rituals want to be bishops, why not?

    It's a bit like the 'druids' who like to prance about in white bedsheets at the summer solstice. If it makes them happy and they don't harm anybody else let them get on with it.

    And the rest of us can get on with reality.

  • Comment number 11.

    The woman's mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities.

  • Comment number 12.

    Post 1 - if you care so little, why post?????

    I think it is a great shame. If a women is good enough to worship, if she is good enough to setve, if she is good enough to serve the coffee, if she is good enough to lead a Sunday School, if she is good enough to lead the music group, if she is good enough to do all these things, why is she not good enough to fulfil the duties of a Bishop

  • Comment number 13.

    So - at last, after 500 years, those who, sadly, left the One True Church which Christ founded with St Peter, are beginning to see that the only valid course open to them is to come back. They will be welcomed with open arms, as I was 7 years ago, when that same light dawned on me. Come on in - the water's lovely, and thanks to the enduring generosity of Pope Benedict, you can have your own Ordinariate, if you so wish. There's nothing to fear and, like me, you'll feel you've come home!

  • Comment number 14.

    I do not claim any particular religious convictions myself, I would merely ask those who say women should not be ordained to come up with just one valid reason for their refusal. Is there some particular reason why the post of Bishop can only be fulfilled by someone sporting a pair of testicles? What is it about these items that make men the only ones able to fulfil this role in life? Or maybe I have missed something - Is it only people who are lacking in breasts rather than those that do have testicles that is the deciding point.

  • Comment number 15.

    Nope. They should just realise they're totally irrelevant and disband.

  • Comment number 16.

    I hate to see the Anglicans tearing themselves apart on issues that scripture won't uphold. It isn't a question of women bishops or not - I see no scriptural problem - the problem is that if you read the Greek churches (sing) had bishops (pl) not the other way round. The concept of bishops it itself flawed. It's no good basing your ecclesiology on the traditions of men and then expecting scripture to uphold it. The CofE was cobbled together for political reasons and took great delight in persecuting those who looked to scripture rather than tradition for their base. Trouble is that down the road today they discover they built on sand.

  • Comment number 17.

    Isn't god supposed to view all people as born equally? If so it begs the question of why it's taken so long for the issue of women bishops to come to the fore, or for that matter why it took so long for the church to except woman priests.

    Considering the morality that so many religious leaders preach about you'd think they'd be far more excepting of their own, regardless of gender, and wouldn't still be hanging on to archaic ideals.

    I mean why on earth would anyone in the church still have a problem with the idea of woman bishops? In what way does it go against the teachings of god? Would god be against the idea?

    If so then he isn’t worth worshiping IMV. I wouldn’t want a god that actively encourages sexism.

  • Comment number 18.

    I thought chauvenism was pretty much dead? Why is the church allowed to discriminate against women? If a business advertised a job and said "no women please" I'm sure the law would have something to say about it...

  • Comment number 19.

    Should women be ordained as bishops? Yes, every last one of them.

  • Comment number 20.

    As usual the aetheist's creep on the board showing us what leading lights they are, never contructive comment, but should we be surprised. The trouble with the CofE is that it's dwindling because of trying to be popularist rather than sticking to it's principles so it gets shot down on both counts. It really needs to look at it's foundation and see if it's a true one. The monarchy being the head of the church just isn't the right structure to start with it should be separate from Government etc. There's a misconception that church's should be organised on an equality issue so why didn't Jesus, surely he was the most liberated mind that's been on this earth and knew precisely what his father in heaven's will was. Who has the authority to change the way he set his church up only an appointed leader called by him. The CofE doesn't possess one because the head of the church is the Queen. The conclusion is that women for what ever reason shouldn't be ordained at this time let alone become Bishop's.

  • Comment number 21.

    Should the Church of England ordain women bishops?

    Just plain and simple POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

    Is anything that is "man only" safe?.

  • Comment number 22.

    People still follow religion? Oh dear.

  • Comment number 23.

    At 00:06am on 11 Jul 2010, Stephen Reimer wrote:
    As usual the aetheist's creep on the board showing us what leading lights they are, never contructive comment, but should we be surprised.
    .....................................................................
    It is perfectly possible to have a view on a matter such as this without the need to be a member of the Church Of England. Indeed, if one were to restrict comment to just those people who are members of a church it would be a very short debate.
    There are wider issues here, for example any other employer who advertised a job but specifically excluded one gender from applying would be accused of sexism. People are asking why this church, or indeed any church should be allowed to be exempt from legislation which affects virtually everybody else. One does not need to have a belief in God in order to contribute constructively.

  • Comment number 24.

    This is all so pathetic... Supposedly grown men and women squabbling over who's turn it is to wear the funny hats and silly clothes in a fantasy game of being in touch with a non-existent bogey man to frighten a lot of ignorant and small minded sheep..
    Put away your toys and get into the real world !!!!!

  • Comment number 25.

    20. At 00:06am on 11 Jul 2010, Stephen Reimer wrote:
    "As usual the aetheist's creep on the board"

    Whyever should atheists need to 'creep'? Fact of the matter is, this issue has already had more attention than it deserves. How do we know that? Well, because it is a topic on BBC HYS. It SHOULD be a simple issue for the people who belong to that religion (can't recall which one it is; they are all quite similar and equally ridiculous in my view), and not be more widely promoted as a discussion point in the media. That it is a talking point just goes to show that religion gets far more attention than it deserves.

    Once the issues has become part of HYS, however, it is part of the mainstream and I will jolly well comment as much as I like, thanks very much. And I'm an atheist and proud, FYI. I have no need to 'creep'.

  • Comment number 26.

    I have an issue with religions seeing themselves as above the law. There are sex discrimination laws in the UK that protect females and ensure all jobs are open to ALL of our citizens. Any religions not allowing women equal access to all of their jobs needs to be shut down. No debate. This is UK law. If the religions don't like it they can always move to another country. After all, I don't like my taxes being used to pay for the Royal Family or for the Pope's visit but I have no choice unless I leave the country. If religions continue to be treated above the law then we need to start demonstrating in London so we can all have the same right to choose which laws we want to follow and which ones we want to opt out of due to "our beliefs". Unfortunately the UK government is too weak and too afraid of religions to make them behave decently.

    I find this to be yet ANOTHER hypocritical example of the very people who claim to be following God's path but are actually segregating people and basically telling women they are not good enough. Do women really not value themselves enough to stand up and fight against this discrimination ? I am a man and I would stand side by side with you - I detest discrimination.

    Surely a female can love God just as much as a man ? This is all about keeping the rich, white man at the top so he can control everything. It's not about God or the Bible. The men at the top of religion don't want women taking their jobs but from what I've seen of all major religions in my lifetime I think women would actually do a better job. Maybe women could bring back the love and compassion that religion was supposed to be about ? Men have made it all about hate, greed and segregation.

    If all churchgoing females refused to give money to the church they would see this policy reversed very quickly. Religion is all about money folks ! Don't let them win.

  • Comment number 27.

    panchopablo, why don't you just explain how women are second class citizens -- and are spiritually inferior too. Because they have no penis!

    Or are you an ignoramus who cries "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" in total ignorance of the history of Christianity?

  • Comment number 28.

    discrimination should have no place in any work place including the church, those in high places should be setting an example.It's not as though the Church has huge numbers lining up to do the job, if they don't change their attitude there will be more churches closing.
    numbats

  • Comment number 29.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 30.

    5. At 11:05pm on 10 Jul 2010, Mad Max and Satan Dog Paddy wrote:
    >They could ordain my dog for all I care.

    Why do you hate your dog?

  • Comment number 31.

    20. At 00:06am on 11 Jul Stephen Reimer wrote:
    >As usual the aetheist's [SIC] [SIC] creep on the board

    I don't think I creep. Here goes, creep:

    If mankind manages, despite the best efforts of the religious kooks, nutters, extremists (i.e., the whole lot of them), to survive for the next hundred years, I have no doubt at all that the act of indoctrinating any child (including their own child) into any religion will be treated as an extremely serious criminal offence, carrying a sentence equivalent to that for RAPE. For that is what it is - mental and spiritual rape of minors.

    Discuss, with especial regard to women priests.

  • Comment number 32.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 33.

    27. At 02:11am on 11 Jul 2010, Phosgene wrote:
    "panchopablo, why don't you just explain how women are second class citizens -- and are spiritually inferior too. Because they have no penis!"

    I made no suggestion that women are inferior,it is you who assumed that i said that.

    As i said,cant there be a boys club now or do we have to let women be vicars and bishops to please the barmy looney liberal left.

    "Or are you an ignoramus who cries "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" in total ignorance of the history of Christianity?"

    I see no political correctness towards Christianity on this board.

    I look forward to see the same vicious and vile comments when a HYS pops up about Islam.
    Oh wait thats when PC kicks in by the Guardian readers.

  • Comment number 34.

    There is no theologiacl reason why women should not be ordained as bishops.
    Women played a major role in the early church in Palestine and Rome and St Paul amongst others states we are aall equal in the eyes of God, there is not difference between sexes, races etc.
    It is only because men came to dominate the the church as it grew and took control. Those against women clergy are just misguided and need to return to the scriptures 7 ngostic bible for guidance.

    As for those on here that make flippant remarks about Christianity they clearly have little knowledge about spiritual matters and sadly lack the intellectual capacity to involve themselves in this complex issue.
    So, I would suggest they stop putting comments on here and return to their self-centred secular lives where all they can understand is what they see and hear.

  • Comment number 35.

    We all know that the Church of England already ordain gay men as bishops, so why not ordain women? Yet again more double standards of hypocrisy from a medieval and archaic system that purports to know what's best. Church of England, Anglicans, for goodness sakes, grow up and stop throwing your teddy bears out of your prams.

  • Comment number 36.

    Does it really matter, when the whole absurd concept of religion is built on myth and heresay, with absolutely no basis in fact.
    So, if 'The Church' wants to appoint women bishops as an added attraction to their ridiculous, self fulfilling circus, then who cares.
    Who knows, if there had been women in the priesthood in earlier times, the corruption of trusting young people by those in religious authority - and those who continue to allow the corrupters to hide - would, at least, have been minimised.....

  • Comment number 37.

    I'd like a cleric to explain the theological argument for this. For me, it's like allowing women to join the police force but not letting them rise above the rank of constable.

  • Comment number 38.

    With all the worlds problems, this is what they squabble about?

  • Comment number 39.

    There are so few people that have given all their wealth to the poor and now follow Jesus Christ that we need every one we have on the front line. Only 10% of the UK population goes to Church, and only 10% of those are Born Again Christian. We have 99% to save. Yes, we should have women Bishops.

  • Comment number 40.

    Of what I know of the Church of England they seem to be very open and accepting of others particularly single mothers. It seems to be a more loving, kinder, gentler religion so accepting women would seem to naturally follow from this same philosophy. Also, if anyone's noticed its 2010 and time to start accepting women into all levels of business,government and religion. The world might improve if men give up their hegemony on most things evil like war, profit and ego.

  • Comment number 41.

    I wish it were as simple as the question suggests. Should women be ordained as bishops? It is a wider question than that. Should there be such a role as a 'bishop,' male or female? The problem lies in the nature of the church of England itself. Christianity is founded upon the New Testament message. This teaches that mankind is separated from God because of sin (disobedience). Asa consequence we have condemned ourselves. But God sent His son Jesus to bear our punishment in His death. I know this is not something like to hear or believe, but that's the reality of it.

    Those who do become Christians according the pattern described in the Bible become a part of God's family, which the New Testament calls the 'church.' This church is all of God's people, and there is clearly only one 'church' described in Scripture. This church is composed of individual autonomous congregations which are 'led' by a group of qualified men who are variously called elders, overseers and bishops.There are no positions in the church where individuals have any authority, so priests, vicars etc are also alien to the Christian message.

    One aspect of the church which obviously does not go well today, is the apostle Paul's instruction that women are not aloud to teach in mixed assemblies. (Assembley = church).

    What we see around us today that passes for Christianity has little relationship to the Bible. It is a man made organisation that owes more to the middle ages than to first century Christianity.

    So, can women be bishops Scripturally? No, but then, neither can men.

  • Comment number 42.

    Churches have historically split many times over these kinds of nonsense rows. God never seems to intervene...

    Balkingpoints / www

  • Comment number 43.

    The more I see of all organised religions (as distinct from beliefs), the more I am convinced that they are all a curse upon the world and all its people. They are all about control, power and money, and about as far from their professed beliefs as they can get.

    They have been at the root of more death and destruction than any other single factor for millenia, and have always claimed that 'God is on our side' or they are pursuing a 'holy war'. There is nothing holy about war - only death, pain and sorrow, and nothing holy about those who propose it.

    It seems to be a universal human failing that as soon as any group with a common interest or belief forms, there is a need to establish a hierarchy, and thereby the tools of power and control.

    I don't care whether anyone wants to believe in an all-knowing, all-seeing power that governs us all, but it's more likely to be GCHQ than 'God'. If there is a 'God', and he sees all we feel and do, I can only guess that he must be massively depressed.

  • Comment number 44.

    "NO" Because Bishops' on the Chess board are allways male. its an old Game?

  • Comment number 45.

    I thought the church taught humility, which meant that you followed whatever course was given to you.

    One of the few areas of life where ambition should not be taken into account.

    I don't understand how a religion can change its beliefs because of politically correct ideas. There are many instances in the Bible where taking what it says literally is clearly impossible. Attemting to read into part of it what what might be implied, as in the case of the Roman Catholic church refusing to condone birth control, can also be open to argument. There are other passages where there can be no doubt as to content and what it means.

    There again, I don't see that many Christian churches practising humility.

  • Comment number 46.

    And so it came to pass the BBC maintained the small minded following of atheists who depended upon it like fish depend upon water.

    By picking certain topics for HYS and avoiding others the BBC simply demonstrates its insensitivity to ordinary people's concerns. I am sure a God would urge women not to let sexism interfere with faith and trust in Him, in Her, in It.

  • Comment number 47.

    What would Jesus do?

    Well The Vicar of Dibley was a great success. I look forward to the sequel the Bishop of ---------? Come on BBC lets have some fun!

  • Comment number 48.

    Should a religious group modernise and conform with external non religious views - well that's up to them however they should ignore this view at their peril since this is also their target audience for revenue and audiences, and also membership therefore it's best not to upset them.

  • Comment number 49.

    You might as well be asking 'should the fairies at the bottom of my garden allow pixies to be ordained?'

    The sooner people get over this idea of religion, a heaven and hell etc., the sooner people can try and make the most of the wonderful opportunities THIS life affords us.




  • Comment number 50.

    The reason why male bishops and clergy generally has been the rule is I believe because Jesus had male disciples. Whether he had any female disciples is a matter of debate. The known disciples and St Paul amongst others were as sexist as may be expected for the place and time.
    What a modern day Jesus would do is entirely open to question.

    To base ethics on indifferent history must be a great mistake.

    Whether bishops should be male or female or both, is a matter of ethics, and ethical values must be justified in their own right. If we accept the idea that Christianity implies belief in altruism, or similar, then everything must be judged from that standpoint and not by 'authority'.

  • Comment number 51.

    No Women Bishops, No women Priests. Both Titles are Male. Forcing this threw will bring the Church to its knees and make thinking males join the Catholic Church. Not a bad thing when the Church of England is only a made up religion of recent years.


  • Comment number 52.

    As a regular CofE communicant, I find it hard to understand why this is causing such furore now. Surely the decision has already been made in reality - once the church decided to ordain women a few years ago it was obvious that female Bishops would be on the way, and who knows - perhaps a female Archbishop some day.

    I must admit that I was against the ordination of women at the time, though my views have been completely turned on their head by one particular lady who came to our parish as a Curate.

    If anyone is totally against women Bishops, the time to stand up and be counted was a few years ago - it's far too late now as this train was set in motion the moment the first female ordination took place.

  • Comment number 53.

    What an intolerant society we have become. Not that long ago one was vilified, or worse, if one didn’t belong to the right religion or even the right sect of the right religion. Now one is criticized if one holds any trace of religious belief.

    I find both evangelical religious people and militant atheists as objectionable as each other.

    In the cries of “religion” from atheists, I hear an echo of Matthew Hopkins shouting “witch”.

    If I choose to believe in a deity, then that’s my belief. If I choose to believe that there is no deity, then that also is my belief. If I choose to say “I don’t know” don’t take that as an invitation to push your own beliefs down my throat.

  • Comment number 54.

    Who really cares? Anyway, has anyone asked god what he/she/it thinks???

  • Comment number 55.

    Does anybody really care?
    Numbers of Church goers are falling like a stone this should give a clue.

  • Comment number 56.

    No I don't. There is too much of this we should employ people because they are a woman or because they are black, brown, yellow, green or purple. It has been the policy not to have women bishops for hundreds of years so why should it change now.

    If there has to be woman bishops, lets see women rabbis and woman imams.

  • Comment number 57.

    51. At 07:50am on 11 Jul 2010, Happy wrote:
    No Women Bishops, No women Priests. Both Titles are Male. Forcing this threw will bring the Church to its knees and make thinking males join the Catholic Church. Not a bad thing when the Church of England is only a made up religion of recent years.

    ...............

    May I ask, I presume you hail from the 14th century? Why are the "titles" male - how do you square that with "gender reassignment" as it's euphemistically put? Why should "thinking males" join the Catholic church? Have you asked your god their opinion? Where is it stated in your bible? Anyway - given the revolting actions of a large number of the catholic church towards young boys, I would run a mile from that church - if I was one your "thinking males". Oh and just for the record, I've given up on ALL religions - just control methods for the gullible.

  • Comment number 58.

    In this day and age there should not be even a scent of discrimination. The Catholic church is not moving with the times. The clock should not be turned back. Women should have the same freedoms and opportunities as men. As long as the church is governed by archaic principles, worshippers will move away in droves.

  • Comment number 59.

    Who cares, These people are irrelevant they could ordain paul the octopus and most people would not care.

  • Comment number 60.

    58. At 08:17am on 11 Jul 2010, Pancha Chandra wrote:

    In this day and age there should not be even a scent of discrimination. The Catholic church is not moving with the times. The clock should not be turned back. Women should have the same freedoms and opportunities as men. As long as the church is governed by archaic principles, worshippers will move away in droves.

    -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

    I agree that women should have the same rights as men. I am also think that if women want equality, then they should be able to do the same work as men. Unfortunately, because of pregnancy, time of the month issues etc women cannot do the same work as men. This is where the problem of equality begins.

    If a woman can do as well as a man as a bishop, then that's fine, but if the issues I have mentioned above get in the way, then women should not become bishops.

  • Comment number 61.

    Religion is just a silly game. The most unworthy ever invented by man. Let them ordain whom they wish. Let the Theologians pore over their fairy tale tomes and discover an overlooked edict originating from the 'Holy Spirit' which will 'lighten the darkness'.

  • Comment number 62.

    For those who still believe that a woman cannot be validly ordained, and they are a substantial minority and are in good conscience, the problem is that a bishop can ordain a priest, and that to them a man or a woman ordained by a woman bishop would not be validly ordained. And if that person became a bishop neither would any person whom he or she in turn ordained. And so on. The effect is schism, and if the women priests really love the Church they will set aside their own ambitions in favour of unity.

  • Comment number 63.

    I am guessing that the clergy rejected the "compromise" because a large proportion of them are now women and they were not going to go on for ever accepting second-class status. The so-called compromises which the archbishops were calling for concessions from the people who always make them - the liberal majority. So once again Williams and Sentamu were in effect implying that somehow the liberal stance (which recognises what are now majority views about women and their right to fair and equal treatment)is less compelling and should be trimmed to meet the objections of hardliners. NO! NO! NO! It was time to bring the church into the 21st century and stop insulting women. And for those who say that Christ chose only men as his disciples I say he also chose only jews. So what are you going to do about that?

  • Comment number 64.

    Why does the church not fall under law with regards discrimination.

    If this was a private company the Nanny State's Stazi would be all over it with threats.

    The church is just an irrelevant part of society now and by debating this and using events that no one can prove actually took place as justification is no different to claiming you murdered someone because a voice in your head told you to. No one can prove the voice did anything.

    What sickens me is there are people dying in the world and this was the 2nd story on the news last night. In reality it never even warranted a mention.

  • Comment number 65.

    Well I dont know anything about the Ordaination of None Males. To be honest, I always thought that women had more sense than men, and I cannot see why they want to be wearing silly hats and chanting mumbo jumbo. I will shortly be taking Max and Paddy my two dogs around Rugeley in Staffordshire for their first walk of the day. As usual the Catholic church will be packed to capacity. The carpark full. I dont know what sort of Gig Ted, Dougal and Jack are performing inside, but Herr Ratcatcher has certainly got a crowd puller on his hands here. They are also packed on Saturday nights too ?. Even when there is footie on the TV. It maybe because at the side of the church by the blue concrete statue of the virgin Mary is a very very popular Drinking club run by the Church ?. Yes the Catholic church in this Town is in the Manchester United League. The Anglican churches appear very more downbeat, very few people attending, and certainly no Bars. Perhaps you have to grow a big beard like Rowans and become a druid before you can join this club. ? . Its a little bit like little league in the park. Well they better get their act sorted out, if they dont they are in a prime location for being converted to a Wetherspoons.
    Perhaps if somebody with an idea about whats going on could write say two 1000 word essays for HYS about the pros, and the cons of the ordaination of women and Gays. These two groups do form rather a big part of our society, and keeping them out, is well, rather discrimatory.

  • Comment number 66.

    It's a boys' club and the boys want to keep it for themselves; they're frightened of the girls coming in and spoiling their games!

    As a woman I wouldn't want to have anything to with an organisation that is so neanderthal and narrow in its thinking.


  • Comment number 67.

    Does it really matter, I sure we wont here any protests from the almighty.

  • Comment number 68.

    21. At 00:21am on 11 Jul 2010, panchopablo wrote:
    Should the Church of England ordain women bishops?

    Just plain and simple POLITICAL CORRECTNESS.

    Is anything that is "man only" safe?.

    ------------------------------------

    No as that would be seen to be discriminating and rightly so.

    However, there are certain groups that are allowed to discriminate against others when it falls under the umbrella of being poilitically correct to their way of thinking.

    Modo awards/Black Police Officers association to name but a few.

  • Comment number 69.

    A bit of a slant, but Tony Blair is a so called Christian. I see nothing in his behaviour, as MP for Texas North and part time Prime Minister or after stepping down in the palace coup, that conforms to so called Christian norms. In particular regarding greed. Is there anything different to his behaviour and what Jesus kicked people out of the church for?

    The bible was probably the first edition of Private Eye as everything took place around the church for effect, Just like in that organ currently Cameron and Clegg are Headmaster and Deputy of the Comprehensive Academy.

  • Comment number 70.

    Yippee a chance for a Bit of Clergy bashing thanks BEEB was getting bored with the Spy stuff!

  • Comment number 71.

    Someone suggested the ordination of dogs ridiculous !
    Cat's would be a far better choice my two moggies have volunteered as they understand there is no heavy lifting and you get to sleep for 6 days a week!

  • Comment number 72.

    With SO MANY people leaving their churches they should be GLAD that women want

    to be Bishops. I know that some things in nature DON'T & CAN'T CHANGE but we

    are not talking about nature. We are talking about women who you & I know.

    There are some things that men so best and some thing that women do best.

    There are some men who will NEVER like what WOMEN do (in alot of counties

    around the world women are the 'undrdog') and there are some women who will

    NEVER like what men do. In UK & USA some things have changed for the better

    (not everything) I think it would be good to have women Bishops, for there are

    lots of experiences they too can bring to the people. In the Bible there were

    important women too like the LEADER Deborah in Judges chapter 4. The Bible

    also has TWO books about two amazing women, Ruth who wasn't a leader she

    showed she had amazing QUALITIES & kindness that could only come from her in

    this story. Then there is ESTHER who wasn't a ruler but had life & death in

    her hands (rulers of old had that) ....the man who wanted to hurt her people

    , she stopped him & change th rules of the WHOLE county. The woman in John

    chapter 4 she was a leader (she would have been dispised by many people then &

    NOW for her past) yet she lead many people to HIM. Another amazing woman again

    who would have been despised by men & WOMEN was Rahab in the Bibe in Judges

    chapter 2 and Judges chapter 6 from verse 22 this woman lead her Father Mother

    Brother & ALL her relatives! There was also Anna in the Bible Luke chapter 2

    verse 36 who was a Prophet her words were taken as IMORTANT.....

  • Comment number 73.

    If you base a religion on the teachings and life of events 2000 years ago, those times were completely different.
    Of course JC had no women disciples. Women were looked on in a totally different way, then and all the churches do these days is debate homosexuality and women bishops.
    JC loved EVERYONE.
    Organised religion can do whatever they like, but they should also give up their cars and travel by donkey. Also, give up their comfortable lifestyles and give up TV, the internet, radio etc...
    If I was religious, I would have no problems with women bishops.

  • Comment number 74.

    I dont think gender matters when it concerns belief in mythical sky people

  • Comment number 75.

    Of course not!. One of the reasons the Anglican church is losing the very last of its social influence/relevance is its willingness to scrap its traditions. If you don't want the Bible as a starting point, invent a new religion and write your own Holy Books.

    There are some (me included) who regard Christianity as a kind of reformed Judaism. I wouldn't expect to find a female Rabbi. For that matter I wouldn't expect to find a female Imam.

    Heavens above, next they'll be expecting men to conceive and bear children.....

  • Comment number 76.

    If god existed, you wouldn't need religions.
    So the various churches can wrangle over this as they wish - it makes no difference in reality. I think the sex discrimination legislation should take care of this question without the need to involve anyones imaginary friend.

  • Comment number 77.

    So are religions allowed to pick and choose which laws they want to follow in the UK ? Is this because they pay no taxes ?

  • Comment number 78.

    Its the latest "interpetation of the scriptures in a modern age". The whole point of a religeon is that it is something that you can believe in. If you keep reinterpeting it it becomes nothing, you don't believe in anything, there are no principles or standards.

    So what is the effect, you drive out those who do believe in something. Its a Schism. The liberals have driven and driven for it over the last decades, infact since Ramsey left.

    Now there is one thing to do, dis-establish the Church of England, remove from it the power it loves, break communion with the hairy leftie and enter communion with traditional Anglicans.

  • Comment number 79.

    If the Church of England became a truly Protestant church instead of a Catholic clone it would do away with bishops,archbishops ,deacons etc. Disestablish ,create presbyteries and become more like other protestant faiths and less like a catholic church with the Queen instead of the Pope.
    No more regular convulsions as is the norm at present.

  • Comment number 80.

    The church is a medieval organisation whose morality has failed to keep up with the ethically more enlightened world in which we now live. It is institutionally anti-women and anti-homosexual. Women and homosexuals who support the church are like turkeys voting for Christmas. They are saying: I believe that I am a second class person who deserves to be discriminated against. They are traitors to their sex/sexual orientation and are a disgrace.

  • Comment number 81.

    How about a compromise.

    The women can have the Church as long as they leave Working Men's Clubs alone

  • Comment number 82.

    How many bishops did Jesus have and were they male or female?

  • Comment number 83.

    56. At 08:09am on 11 Jul 2010, Tony wrote:

    "If there has to be woman bishops, lets see women rabbis and woman imams."

    75. At 09:18am on 11 Jul 2010, doctor bob wrote:

    "I wouldn't expect to find a female Rabbi."

    From Wikipedia's entry on Julia Neuberger :

    "Neuberger was Britain's second female rabbi after Jackie Tabick, and the first to have her own synagogue. She was rabbi of the South London Liberal Synagogue from 1977 to 1989 and is President of West Central Liberal Synagogue"

    Welcome to the real world guys!

    As to the question itself, as an aetheist it's not up to me to say what the C of E should do but I do feel that failing to move with the times will further erode the church's position (which might be a good thing for me but certainly isn't for the church).

  • Comment number 84.

    Having had people fooled for 2000 years with Windbaggery then if they want to continue getting away with it then they will have to let women stand at the front and continue the sham.

  • Comment number 85.

    There was a time, perhaps too many years ago, when the BBC could be relied upon to report accurately matters pertaining to the British constitution. This morning the vote in the General Synod was reported as being contrary to “tradition”.
    The fact is that this perverse vote is contrary to the text of the New Testament in two places (1Tim3 1-9 and Tit1 6-9).
    Being contrary to the “plain Word of God “, the vote violates the safeguards of Her Majesty’s Coronation oath. This, in turn, takes the matter beyond the competence to Parliament.
    Synod, wastes a great deal of time. Perhaps its members should now go quietly home and pray for both wisdom and a little brotherly love.

  • Comment number 86.

    6. At 11:06pm on 10 Jul 2010, Cronk wrote:

    Personally, I don't know and don't expect the BBC HYS to enlighten me, however que: the 'church is irrelevant' and 'there is no God' posts, because some failed scientist called Richard Dawkins said so!

    This debate will be lost among those who argue for a God and those who don't!

    >>> It is outrageous to call Dawkins a failed scientist. Not only has he made made significant contributions to the his field of science, he is one of those who have made a bold attempt to wean people away from their outdated superstitions and their beliefs in a 'demon haunted world' (Sagan). Time to move on from faith in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, et al.

    One cannot help but suspect that Cronk might be a follower of a certain failed carpenter. I have absolutely nothing against carpenters but I think that scientists (like Dawkins) have made a very important and positive contribution to the modern world, much more so than religious leaders. The world would be better off if religious leaders reverted to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin rather than trying to imflict their superstitions on others.

  • Comment number 87.

    Ah, love to see helpful institutions with their finger on the pulse as ever.

  • Comment number 88.

    If the Anglican church is so blinded by its internal power-struggles and politics that it can't see its traditional beliefs in misogyny and homophobia for what they are: shameful as opposed to God-given, then it should continue in its self-destruction. It comes across to the layperson as an anachronism with no spiritual authority whatsoever, which is a shame because Rowan Williams and John Sentamu have much that is worthwhile to say on the subject.

    Human identification with the spiritual realm is one of its greatest assets: its insistence on the maintenance of outdated and divisive traditions is not.

  • Comment number 89.

    Sex Discrimination Act 1975 states - Part 1 - 1(a)"A person discriminates against a woman in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act if -
    (a) on the ground of her sex he treats her less favourably than he treats or would treat a man."

    And therein lies the answer.

    Why is the church exempt from laws that govern the rest of society just because they don't think it applies to them or that some 2000 year old book overrides anything that everyone else in society MUST abide by?

    The Queen is the Head of the Church of England and I believe she's most definitely a woman. Maybe those priests prepared to leave because of serving under a female bishop should pack their bags anyway because they are, most definitely, serving under a woman that outranks every single one of them!

  • Comment number 90.

    They can do what the want....but it would be better if these Holy Joe's forgot about power, prestige and the church PLC and got on with what Jesus taught.
    Give everything away and take the hard road of the founder.
    Go out to Rwanda, Haiti and a thousand other places that need practical help instead of arguing over dogma which is man-made.
    Isn't this farce why people don't go to church.
    They don't fool people anymore....and they don't fool the God that they piously pretend to follow.

  • Comment number 91.

    75. At 09:18am on 11 Jul 2010, doctor bob wrote:

    There are some (me included) who regard Christianity as a kind of reformed Judaism. I wouldn't expect to find a female Rabbi. For that matter I wouldn't expect to find a female Imam.

    ============================================

    Well, I'm delighted to say that the Jewish church saw the sense of having women Rabbis some years ago; unfortunately I don't think some other faiths will follow suit.

    As an atheist I have no real interest in what any church does or does not do.
    As a woman I find the discrimination and sexism nauseating.

  • Comment number 92.

    "Cronk wrote:

    …the 'church is irrelevant' and 'there is no God' posts, because some failed scientist called Richard Dawkins said so!"

    Oh dear, I really don't think you can be allowed to get away with such utter nonsense. First, how dare you assume (except surely you can't be daft enough to really believe what you wrote?) that atheists or critics of religion just do it because of Dawkins?
    Second - if Dawkins is a "failed scientist", then give me his failure! This isn't a matter of subjective opinion: Dawkins is a world-renowned scientist, and I think you know it. All in all, what a very strange posting.

  • Comment number 93.

    We have the Taliban out to annex half the population, bury them in burka`s and close all girls schools when they return to rule Afgan with their fierce brand of man made religion. The dark age mentality in men of today have no qualms about stoning women to death buried up to their necks in sand as dictated by their religion. The issue of ordaining woman to bishops is proving deeply devisive in the C of E. Why have do so many men have a deep loathing and blinding hatred of such a beautiful part of our human race, just how far have we to kick the a.... of these destestable men into the 25th century to get them to understand that their brand of vile religion is likened to the stone-age grunts of their ancesters. Religion any religion, if you so are predisposed to those beliefs, should`nt it be a thing of beauty for all to participate in and make that spiritual progress if they so choose, without those nasty demons in the darkest recesses of squeaky little mans fleasize mind emerging to object.

  • Comment number 94.

    You can't get to 'him' unless you go through me!
    The usual squeal from those that try to use religion as a power tool. Maybe, just maybe, those at the starting of a religion where truely good people but after so many years of infiltration of any seeking power the church has become a usable tool to supress the masses.
    When a lot younger than now I truely believed that the baddies represented 10% of this country now I know that it is 90% who are rotten and 10% are fair minded.

  • Comment number 95.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 96.

    86. At 09:53am on 11 Jul 2010, minsa wrote:

    6. At 11:06pm on 10 Jul 2010, Cronk wrote:

    Personally, I don't know and don't expect the BBC HYS to enlighten me, however que: the 'church is irrelevant' and 'there is no God' posts, because some failed scientist called Richard Dawkins said so!

    This debate will be lost among those who argue for a God and those who don't!

    >>> It is outrageous to call Dawkins a failed scientist. Not only has he made made significant contributions to the his field of science, he is one of those who have made a bold attempt to wean people away from their outdated superstitions and their beliefs in a 'demon haunted world' (Sagan). Time to move on from faith in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy, et al.

    _____________________________________________________________


    HA!

    Why don't you research his work, Dawkins has brought his biased view of science to the wider populous or lowest common denominator, you decide!

  • Comment number 97.

    'Should the Church of England ordain women Bishops'?

    Not sure if this comes under equality laws in the UK? The Queen is the head of the Church of England? There are more confusing questions raised for us today looking at ancient scripture and how the Bible portrays women overall.

    I guess the Church of England have yet to forgive Eve over that apple scandal in the Garden?

  • Comment number 98.

    As a Roman Catholic it might seem hypocritical for me to express an opinion on this vexed matter but since women are the child bearing gender it seems that they already have the greater vocation in life and should leave the C of E hierarchy to men with all their shortcomings. In the R.C. church we also have the celibacy of the priesthood which means that those men with that special vocation have no familial distractions unless they break their vow of celibacy and in which case they are de-frocked. Jesus made it quite clear that those who choose the priesthood vocation should abandon family ties and He chose men for that good reason.

  • Comment number 99.

    60. At 08:25am on 11 Jul 2010, Tony wrote:

    I agree that women should have the same rights as men. I am also think that if women want equality, then they should be able to do the same work as men. Unfortunately, because of pregnancy, time of the month issues etc women cannot do the same work as men. This is where the problem of equality begins.

    If a woman can do as well as a man as a bishop, then that's fine, but if the issues I have mentioned above get in the way, then women should not become bishops.
    =========================================

    "time of the month issues"...!! Oh please...is that the best you can do??

  • Comment number 100.

    Should the Church of England ordain women bishops?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Something meatier please, HYS, such as "Are plastic clothes pegs better than wooden ones?"

 

Page 1 of 8

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.