Church of England won't allow female bishops

Marie-Elsa Bragg, Assistant Curate, embraces a collegue after the Church of England's draft legislation approving women bishops failed to pass during the England General Synod at Church House in central London on November 20, 2012. The legislation needed a two-thirds majority among the three houses of bishops, clergy and laity, but failed by just six voters among the laity. / BEN STANSALL,BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

LONDON The Church of England's governing body on Tuesday narrowly blocked a move to permit women to serve as bishops, leaving the church facing more years of contentious debate.

Following a daylong debate, opponents mustered enough support to deny the necessary two-thirds majority among lay members of the General Synod, with backers falling six votes short of passage.

Many speakers expressed regret that they were unable to agree on a way forward.

"Whatever the outcome, there is no victory in the coming days," said Rev. Angus MacLeay, summing up for the opposition. "It is a train crash."

Reverend Sally Hitchiner stands outside Church House during a lunch break on November 20, 2012 in London, England.

/ Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

The defeat was a setback for Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who retires at the end of December, and his successor, Bishop Justin Welby. Both had strongly endorsed a proposed compromise that they had hoped would end decades of debate on the issue in the church which has around 80 million members worldwide.

Rev. Rachel Weir, leader of Women and the Church, said the group was "absolutely devastated."

"Not just devastated on behalf of clergy women — obviously this will be an enormous blow to clergy women, it's awful for their morale — but it's a disaster for the Church of England."

Passage of legislation to allow women to serve as bishops must be approved by two-thirds majorities in the synod's three houses: bishops, priests and laity.

The vote was 132 in favor and 74 against. In separate votes, bishops voted 44-3 in favor with 2 abstentions, and clergy voted 148-45 in favor.

CBS Radio News' Larry Miller reports Bishop of Norwich Graham James voted for women bishops.

"It feels at the moment incredibly disappointing," James said.

Synod members were voting on the latest compromise which calls for church leaders to "respect" the position of parishes that oppose female bishops — without saying what "respect" would mean in practice.

Church officials say it may take five years to go through the process of taking new legislation to a final vote.

There was much talk from opponents about fresh negotiations, but few ideas about how to resolve the split.

"The trouble is our disagreement is absolute: either a woman can be a bishop, or she cannot," said Rev. Janet Appleby, a parish priest who drafted the compromise.

But she added that "respect ... ensures that parishes that are unable in conscience to accept women priests and bishops will be able to receive appropriate ministerial and episcopal oversight."

"We all think something different is right," said Rev. James Dudley-Smith. "We are divided and yet today we are forcing ourselves to vote."

Canon Simon Killwick from Manchester, opposing the compromise, argued that it was "possible to be in favor of women bishops in principle, but to believe that this was the wrong legislation for introducing women bishops."

It has been 36 years since the General Synod declared it had no fundamental objection to ordaining women as priests, and 18 years since the first women were ordained. But that change never won universal acceptance in the church, with a determined minority arguing that that the move was contrary to the Bible.

That group, affirming what it sees as the Biblical idea of male "headship," has demanded special arrangements to shield it from supervision by female bishops.

Bishop James Jones of Liverpool said he had once embraced male headship, but had changed his mind.

"The truth is that without women in leadership we are no longer able to serve the people in the parishes of England," Jones said. "Women serve as leaders in scripture, on the mission field and as supreme governor and in this General Synod."

He and several others noted that a woman, Queen Elizabeth II, is the church's supreme governor.

Bishops called an emergency meeting for Wednesday morning to assess the result, church officials said.

"This leaves us with a problem," said Bishop Graham James of Norwich. "Forty-two out of 44 dioceses approved the legislation and more than three-quarters of members of diocesan synods voted in favor.

"There will be many who wonder why the General Synod expressed its mind so differently," James said.

Sister churches of the Anglican Communion in Australia, New Zealand and the United States already have women serving as bishops.

Southern Africa joined that group on Sunday with the consecration of Ellinah Wamukoya as the Anglican bishop of Swaziland.

[Jesus_to_ground_control]

The Queens Bishop is a Woman!

A bishop is a piece in the board game of chess. Each player begins the game with two bishops. One starts between the king's knight and the king, the other between the queen's knight and the queen.

[csparish1956]

What? Women aren't important enough to administer in the Church? I am so FED UP with the continued subjugation of qualified women! What kind of stupid paranoia dictates that over half the population of this planet isn't capable? Sorry, but I would take my religious needs elsewhere. To a place where all HUMANS are equal in the sight of God (and man).

[WeHappyFew]

Please note the Bishops voted in favor the clergy voted in favor . Part of the laity, the lunatic fringe evangelicals who are slowly taking over the CofE, castjust enough votes to block it.

[pleiadies1]

While it's disappointing it only delays the inevitable

[daffy64]

A woman was the first person Jesus told to go preach the good new of his resurrection. And we're supposed to believe they can't be church leaders?

Disgraceful.

[csparish1956]

Don't you love the lunatics logic? Because the Bible says so? Like men didn't compile the bible to favor themselves!

[crabnebula]

No. Big. Deal.
Move on, folks.

[Solarrays247]

God and Jesus have been pretty darn quiet for over 2000 years, what with all the wars and sickness and poverty. Perhaps it is time that we women take over, since you men have managed to f*ck it up pretty much.

[rwsmith29456]

If women can be ordained as clergy why can't they hold the office of Bishop? More broadly, what is gained by restricting the office of Bishop to men only?

[Star_of_Paladins]

Wow! Who would have thought that there would be that many monkeys left in England. Huh. . . .

[JadaRah]

To the contrary of a political vote under taken, by any church, ministering in the name of Christ Jesus; opening up the priesthood to women is nothing short of demoralization of the church, no matter how we approach the topic. The idea of believing that part of the scriptures, which only supports our own personal agenda, is neither the message nor the direction that Christ offered to the world.

Essentially, demoralization happens when we use our influences to change the direction of the church because we expect the Word of God to align with our own understanding versus us aligning with the Word of God. Still, the scriptures is very clear on this subject; for supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, is open to all men, where "men" in this context is mankind.

However, in regards to any ecclesiastic positions within the church; women are expected to learn in silence, and with all subjection, to neither teach nor usurp the authority of the man, but to be silent. By no means is this sexist or chauvinistic, rather a condition that must be satisfied based on what happened in the Garden of Eden. Paul details this in his letters to Timothy.

My point is that, if we are to believe Paul in other books, how is it that we are to not believe him within the epistle of Timothy? Therefore, we must accept the entire Word and not only the portion that we believe. For "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

What is truly unfortunate, for any community of believes, is to not understand how God can be with you, when you choose to demoralization His church by allowing the status quo to dictate how the church should be ran, instead of relying on the Word of God. The sad realization is that some honest believers will be misled because God cannot and will not be with you or any community of half-way believers that demoralizes His church by leaning their own understanding.

Any churches functioning under this type of "political dogma" are not serving God, but are truly serving the spirit behind the most popular position with the greatest influence. And since God has been removed from the equation, based on the scriptures; success is very unlikely, but division and destruction are more likely than not, unless the believers repent as well as change.

[cleric77]

It also interesting that when the Apostle Paul was inspired to write these directives about females being excluded from the clergy...that within Roman/Greek pagan religions--females played the major role of being a priestess in their religious ceremonies. Early Christendom's practice of male-only clergy was anti-cultural back in that day.

[JadaRah]

Cleric77, I understand your concerns and at time this entire argument seems very troubling to me because souls who want to believe may be misled. Yet, when we submit to God's reasoning and not our own limited intellect, the acquisition of wisdom become not just a possibility but a reality based o n our faith. And once we let go and allowed God to fill our hearts with his revelation, will we learn, begin to understand and most importantly appreciate what He did for mankind.

In fact, one of the biggest revelations is the concept of "Church", which all comes down to one phrase, "God with us". That's it! There can be no church without God's presence. Any other community of believers of Christ functioning without the presence of God has not place within His kingdom. During the times you are talking about, God was first with the "Jews" and the children of Israel where the chosen people. However, because of the Jews unwillingness to change, God opened up his love and was with the "Gentiles" or the non-believers. This is how you and I gained access to salvation.

Still, the irrefutable truth is that, God was not with any of the Roman or Greek pagan religions, as stated in your comments. The truth or the Word of God does not require any validation from society. If Roman/Greek pagan religions employ women within their clergy, this practice provides no credence that the Word is irrelevant. And, of course, the message and direction that Christ brought was, in fact, anti-culture for the primary reason that mindset of the people and cultures during that time were anti-Christ. This is for the exact reason that Christ stated that he came, not for the righteous but for the sinners.