E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Yui Mok / Pool via AP
The outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, center right, embraces an unidentified person after draft legislation introducing the first women bishops in the Church of England failed to receive final approval from the Church of England General Synod, at Church House in central London, on Nov. 20.
The Church of England appears to be "willfully blind" to the rest of the world, outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams said Wednesday after the church's legislative body voted Tuesday against allowing women bishops.
"Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday, whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society - worse than that, it seems that we are willfully blind to some of the trends and priorities in that wider society," Williams said.
After hours of debate, bishops and clergy in the General Synod comfortably backed the change but lay members were four votes short of a two-thirds majority required in all three houses to pass the measure. Williams fears the church is busy engaging in a debate that mystifies much of the world, where women are seen as equal partners.
"The work to do internally is considerable - but, it's tempting to say, that is as nothing compared with the work we have to do externally. We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do," Williams said, according to the BBC.
The debate over the ordination of women bishops has been dividing the Church of England for more than a decade. More than two years ago, in February 2010, Williams warned the synod that infighting over women bishops and gay priests could result in a schism within the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church in the United States, a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, approved a same-sex blessing service this summer.
Women already serve as Anglican bishops in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, where Barbara Harris made history in Massachusetts in 1989 when she became the first woman ordained as a bishop in the Anglican Communion. The Church of England is part of the Anglican Communion, an international association of Anglican churches with about 80 million members worldwide. The archbishop of Canterbury is the symbolic leader of this movement but has no authority outside England.
Church of England votes against allowing women bishops
According to church rules, the vote may not be brought back before the synod during the current term, ending in 2015.
Some, however, remain hopeful that women's ordination is only a matter of time.
"There will be women bishops in my lifetime," Archbishop of York Dr. John Sentamu said, according to the BBC.
Reuters contributed to this report.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Americans tied to Israel caught in the chaos of Gaza conflict
- 'Army must invade': In southern Israel, support grows for action in Gaza
- Too much democracy? Apathy triumphs in UK's latest election
- Obama's visit a sign of Myanmar's dizzying pace of change
- Key players in the Israel-Gaza cross-border conflict
- French girl found tied up - but alive - in trunk after routine traffic stop
Leave a Comment:
Now the naughty nun convents will remain full!
Popular trends do not make law for the Catholic or Anglican Church. Either the Churches stand on teaching or they loose their identity and credibility to teach anything. Once that happens the Churches start taking on the look of a political campaign, doing polling before decision making then pandering to the lowest common denominator for support.
Good point, sandiego. The questions the Anglicans should be seeking to ask are whether this has been the right move for the Church of England, what is God's Will in all this, and what is the motivation of those who supported women bishops (ie. was it to have political power or be more in line with so-called "modern society", or was it to serve and give back to God in the service of His Church?).
What teaching is that, sandiego? The teaching that women are second-class citizens, incapable of leading a diocese or other high church body, as was the prevailing view 2,000 years ago when these teachings were first promulgated?
Is that what these out-of-touch churches should cling to? I should add that the orthodoxy of just about every one of the world's religions, both Western and Eastern, cling to these outmoded views--which, of course, have nothing to do with the word of God.
Uh.....thew church lost credibility to teach anything centuries ago.
All religions have evolved to meet societal changes throughout history.
womens rights = popular trend??? why don't you go drag those knuckles some place else? the reason you are not sprachen zie Deutsch is because of women, but guys like you don't have much use for them there history books, now do you?
Remember that all canon law and laws within the Anglican church are man-made. It's not like god came down and wrote them.
1 timothy 2:12-13 says
And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
either the bible is the word of God or not, if you do not believe it is, you have no business in church
Argue with God and you are the fool not my rules God's argue with him
Which is what they are anyway, red meat to the nut cases like you in their congregations. The teaching of organized religion has consistently had tried to downgrade the role of women in society. Muslims, Catholics, Angelicans, Baptists not a lot of difference. Could care less, freedom of religion right so don't put your crap in my face and don't try to legislate your beliefs into laws for me. The 2nd amendment will not be what saves us from a totaltarian state, it will be what saves us from a theocracy. As for the Bible, stories passed down, for the new testament 100s of years after christ. All I hope is when it comes apart, I get you in my crosshairs first.
man am I looking forward to having my crosshairs right on that 3rd eye in the middle of your forehead. I am going to help you meet your god com e' mierda
Where in the bible do you see Catholic confession practices? Yodasog, help me out here because even as a former Catholic school student, I don't know where that came from. Nor the priests having to be unmarried. Please note that marriage is both blessed and rejected in the Bible, so you can help me out and say why one is incorrect.
It is true that these were real people who penned these words, but they were not collected and compiled in a way in which we can verify what is a parable, political or directly first person. I am not a theology student, but people can spend a lifetime trying to figure that out. It's not black and white!
The binding law in the Catholic Church is that no pope nor the magisterium has the authority to change the rule that you must be a baptized male to be ordained and the congregation of doctrine and faith said that statement by Blessed John Paul the Great was an infallible statement so put that one to bed for all eternity as far as the Catholic Church goes.You can go to todays Web of Faith 2.0 on EWTN.com and get the answer to that question someone asked it and Frs Trigilio and Brigenti answered it
Even before the New Testament was compiled you can find the teachings of the Apostles it is called the Didache written between the death of Christ and 130AD. Has the liturgy and everything in it. I think it is available online at EWTN.com. document library. If not it probably is at the Vatican website in your choice of 7 languages. Also try the USCCB website under beliefs and teachings. The catechism of the church in paragraphs 1480 to 1496 covers the sacrament of reconciliation which will be footnoted with the references to scripture in clickable links or at the end of the section. It is always important in something like that to check out those footnotes. You would be amazed what you would find.
Full nun convents in the Church of England, Sees Thru Gloss? Get serious.
Do casinos need barmaids? Do airlines need stewardesses? Do religions need nuns?
Let the new Archbishop of Canterbury move to Nigeria. I have moved from Texas to California, and a good thing, because Episcopalians in Texas have aligned themselves with the hatemongers from Nigeria. Once again, I can go to a REAL Episcopal Church, one which aligns itself with a loving God and a compassionate Christ, not with the vengeful Antichrist.
Scripture norms culture not the other way around dear Archbishop.
As an Episcopalian I for one am all for the ordination of women and gay men/women. One thing I do oppose is the ordination of the transgendered, I think it would confuse the hell out of the youth of the congregation. The church is starting to be more concerned in how it looks to the world than in the teachings.
the church is in the world but should not be of the world. If it were of the world then it will certainly be out of sink with the will of God.
Let the Bible be that standard; not the will of men.
The State and the public should stay separate from the Church and mind their own business. The Church will do the same. If you do not agree you are a hypocrite.
Tell it to the Church of England. The reigning monarch of Great Britain is the "Pope" of the Church of England, American Episcopalians and any of the sects spun off from them.
Plus, our set-up here in the USA is a sweetheart deal between the government and the churches, if you haven't noticed. The churches help keep the peace by preaching submission to the government (there are exceptions, of course) and in return the churches don't get taxed the same as any other business. If that isn't the churches being given a priviledged position and having a sweetheart set-up, then NOTHING qualifies. People need to take a look at reality before repeating that old saw about the separation of church and state. Churches are always poking into elections and lawmaking etc...
Well Merlin the sweetheart deal you describe is religious slavery to the political establishment not freedom so no it isn't a good deal. It is servitude and sell out.
sandiego,
When a church's position relies solely on arguments using discriminatory reasons or centuries old tradition then it is OK to change them. We're not a society comparable to those of 4-2 thousand years ago when most "scripture" was written. Just like the Jewish codes of cleanliness of foods was abandoned by christianitybecause the truth of the matter was that it really didn't matter what you ate to survive (excepting cannibalism). At the time of the decision it was a big deal within the church, which was , after all, a Jewish reform sect. Anyway, the codes served (and still serve) many Jews who chose/choose to observe them. They served/serve their purpose. The Apostles ultimately decided that a person didn't need to convert to Judaism to become a christian and they didn't need to observe their dietary laws. One's salvation has nothing to do with either of them. Its the same thing with female participation in a church , becoming a minister and so on. And if a church allows female priests then they have no business denying them the opportunity to advance within the ranks of the clergy. Don't allow tradition to block the best interests of your church or to be an excuse for discriminating against worthy people. It is simply allowing the continuation of an injustice.
Sounds like the church is telling women they can work for the company, just never run it. We don't believe in you but you should believe in us?
I realize there are valid arguments on both sides of this question. However, is it possible that those voting did so because their conscience/belief/reason, whatever you wish to call it, required them to do so? As an Episcopalian, I have seen my church evolve over the past 20 years or so, to the point that those of us who hold, as a matter of conscience/belief/reason, whatever you wish to call it, traditional views no longer feel welcome in most Episcopal churches. I have watched many other denominations lose their folks to the Episcopal church, only to have those folks bring their traditions to change the Episcopal church to more closely resemble what they have left. Just my opinion.
The bishops and the clergy were UNABLE to convince the grassroots (laity), and for a major change such as this a two-thirds majority in all three 'houses' was required. At least the bishops and clergy did not have the constitutional RIGHT to ram the change down the throats of their parishioners.
I'll be honest . . . I was NOT delirious about ordaining women as deacons or priests and many parishes did not want a woman as incumbent PERIOD. The bishops and clergy should have seen this coming.
What's the point in even following a religion that simply changes every 50 years depending on which way society is flowing? Homosexuality, adultery, group sex, murder, rape, even pedophilia were not really taboo in ancient Rome when Christianity started.
Your church (Episcopalian) as well as the other mainline churches are in a freefall with attendance, so much so they largely won't exist in 30 years. The fastest growing religions are the ones that preach conservative messages like Evangelical Christianity and Islam. People deep down don't want to be told what they're doing that they know is wrong is actually OK.
That is exactly correct Mike.D34. If the liberal movement in a denomination wants to make the world its standard, then clearly we will continue to see their denominations decrease in membership while those denominations that have made the Bible the standard will increase. The liberal professors of Christ will not be the leaders as the sheep will not follow. it is unfortunate that liberals that seek to make changes simply cannot see that what they are doing is simply destroying the foundation of the church.
Well you are always welcome to come home to the Catholic Church we had so many( whole parishes minister and all) come home we now have the Anglican extraordinariate which will be using the English Book of Common Prayer for services.
Seems to me Dr Rowan Williams must be colossally inept if he failed to lead his flock to the "promised land" as he sees it. When you're shown to be a complete bumpkin and nincompoop, it's time to step aside and let someone with some competence take over. Sadly, it's just bad form to complain about your utter lack of accomplishment on your way out the door.....have some pride, man.
Sometimes it takes more than one guide and oftimes there are stops along the way on a long journey. How long did it take Moses to lead the Jews to Israel? And that was with a burning bush having given directions.
Where in the bible does it say women are second class citizens? Where in our Constitution does it say women are 2nd class citizens?
I though being a Christian meant treating everyone equal, and with love. Guess the Pope and the others haven't lived up to the Christian ways, have they?
I also believe in the seperation of Church and HATE.
Actions speak louder than words and the actions of most modern churches pretty much scream that women are second class. The only people that don't see that are those who believe that way themselves.
Jesus ordained only men as Bishops, if you don't like it go find another religion it's a free country, the religious are allowed to have their beliefs without the bigots belittling them and insisting they change to meet your secular worldview.
The Catholic Church has declared hundreds of female Saints (highest honor in Christianity) over the past 1000 years and I believe only one or two Popes in the same timeframe, your idea that the CC hates women is wrong.
Actually more important than the female saints is the female DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH. Now that is the highest honor available to anyone after the 2nd century. The Catholic Church honors women as women read Mulieris Dignatatum.
Nowhere, at least in the documents we still have, however shaky the provinance, does the Christ preach discrimnation against anyone. women were his close companions and confidants. The problem is that what Christ taught and professed became irrellevant and of no political value to the people who organized the church within 60 years of his death. There was considerably more power gained in inventing sins out of normal human behavior and presenting themselves as the only cure - at gunpoint if required and not dissallowed. Of what use was the Prince of Peace except to be trotted out on holidays? And they are still at it. Isn't Hubris what they call putting words in God's mouth?
I'm not Christian but it's pretty clear he chose 12 male disciples (these would later ordain Bishops via the laying on of hands), throughout early Christian history this ordination passed from Bishop to Priest and was always male to male, following Jesus's example of anointing his original 12 disciples.
What this is really about is feminism infiltrating the Church of England, the nuns within the Catholic Church do the same thing.
Jesus did not explicitly exclude females from serving as church leaders. He did, however, forbid divorce. "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” The Anglican Church accepts divorce, however, why not women bishops?
Actually if you look the trend in the Catholic Church among those answering the call to religious life is not to the orders all those super liberal femininsts are in. The vocations are going to the traditional orders. Their orders are dying for lack of interest. The hippies and the flower children are going going gone. Traditional Catholicism is being brought back in architecture and everything. The cafeteria is closed.
corona-2947073
With the exception of military-forced change in Turkey, Islam has not evolved to meet societal changes, and gratefully so. Love or Hate it, Islam has integrity, and does not rely on trends to determine its dogma.
Jesus would not recognize Christianity, Moses would not recognize Judaism, and the Prophet would not recognize Islam. Once the founder has died, religions diverge from their teachings over the centuries.
George you're right except for Islam, it's almost completely unchanged from the time of Muhammed. Christianity wouldn't be recognized at all, it's a completely different religion from even 500 years ago.
I think what is at issue is the number of people now who claim no religious affiliation. France, for instance, considered a Catholic country, has about 10% participation of the population in Catholic religious services. I don't know what the participation is of Anglicans in Great Britain but I heard it wasn't very high as a percentage of the population. Churches no longer provide for social needs of much consequence. Religion in general is in a state of decay. By the time the Anglican's allow women as Bishops, millions of young women will have all ready written the church off as another dinosaur. What was the average age of Catholic nuns in the US? Something like 76 years old. There is little to no social stigma to being non religious, so why throw money into a collection plate to pay for legal counsel for church elder scandals?
Or give them money for their political campagains.
You want to see doctrinal integrity look at the Didache then read the catechism of the Catholic Church. They teach the same thing. And the Didache was written before the birth of Mohammed about 400 years before his birth.
If they had women bishops, it would be much welcomed by the little boys. Instead of being the "receivers" the boys could be the "donors".
This was such a sick statement, I hope you really don't have young boys and are just spouting off on the internet.
It's a fact that the mainline Protestant churches who keep trying to adhere to the "trends and priorities" of secular society are seeing the most precipitous decline.
Reading Genesis in the Old Testament, and Paul's epistles in the New Testament leads to a reasonable conclusion that men were routinely supposed to take the leadership role. There were exceptions - Deborah in the Book of Judges is an obvious one. Normally putting men in leadership positions does not make women second class citizens; it's just a difference in roles and responsibilities.
Failure to live up to a religious code is almost universal among human beings of all religions. Men abdicate their leadership role with frightening regularity, and women are only too happy to assume it (Gen 3). But just because we don't live out what is right doesn't change what is right.
Much of the laity of the Anglican Church understands this, and yearns for a church that respects Biblical authority, but the current Anglican leaders do not. Hence the continuing schism within the Episcopal Church in America.
The Catholic Church has suffered a similar failure of leadership in growing a significant number of practicing homosexual priests. The consequences have been terrible.
But consequences are never pretty when adult selfishness and selfish agendas trump what is right.
my thoughts, your choices
Well you can dream but the doctrine on Holy Orders will never be changed. Blessed John Paul the Great said that no Pope nor the Magisterium had the authority to make a change to the basic requirements of the sacrament and that has been declared an infallible statement by the prefect of the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith at the time Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. So it can never be changed go bother someone else.
Well the guys do look better in the dresses ...
Seriously? All of the thigs you could say, and you try to be funny (an missing the mark)? Wow... you mother would be so proud...
To..Sadden """
Seriously where am I wrong...
The Church has made the division of Preists and Nuns pretty clear. The Clergy ran the daily operations of the Church, conducted the Mass, and was the Spiritual guid for the Parish. The Convent were the teachers, the many that went out into the community to give aid, spread good will, and reach out and bring the communtiy together. How is that a "second class citizen"? Their role was as major in communites and the Priests were. I wish women would stop wanting to be men and realize how important they are...
I suppose you think that slavery was the best thing that ever happened to those "darkies" too right. I get the impression that you had a good woman that wouldn't stay pregnant and barefoot and dumped your loser a$$ and that is why you just look for a more "simpler" time. Man you are one sick puppy, what when you aren't on this site what you do mastrabate in front of your computer.
Yeah Dan after that diatribe he's the sick one, keep telling yourself that...
Actually the part that kind of sets it is the part where the priest act in "personna Christi" As stand ins for a Royal High Priest of the order of Melchisedek who acts through them. The mass is the priesthood of the faithfull, all Catholics present, offering their sacrifice to the Creator through the consecrated priest acting in "personna Christi" Christ acting through him consecrating the host and the wine is the unending sacrifice instituted at the Passover Supper. Not a re-creation, not a commemoration the same consecration into the real Prescense of Christ in the Eucharist. It is Christ's real prescense that offers the sacrifice to Our Father. And it is a call to the priesthood it is not a job. It is a lifelong committment a vow never to be broken that you do not get released from. Now are most of the people clamoring ready to make that committment never to be released from it. This isn't the world of American liberalism.
Most Christian churches and especially the Roman Catholic Catholic and Anglican Church are ruled 'top down'. You as a member or even as a non-member only get to vote on church policy with your feet. Either you buy into the concept that the hiearchy is inspired by heaven to act in the best interests of the members and following the church's policies will eventually lead you to Heaven or you find another formal institution that buys into your philosophy or else of course, you just abandon organized religion.Don't be grumpy because some particular church won't accept your view of the world. Surely somewhere is some other church that will.
I don't know about the Anglican Church. In RCC one does not vote with his/her feet. One simply leaves. The Church stays with the same dogmas She had two thousand years ago. It is the one that leaves says good bye to these dogmas. It does not matter how long one stays married to his or her spouse. It matters if he/she stays till the end. One can leave because confusion, and can always come back, for the door of forgiveness is always opened. I don't write about RCC as an institution, for if it was an institution, it would collapse a long, long time ago with all the heresies, bad Popes, priests, and Catholics. Thank God it is not us who build Her. Anyway, the Church is not a museum of the Saints but a hospital for the sick. Most of the people are sincere. One can be sincere and wrong. The question at the end is - do we want to be good, desire Truth and Love, or we want to do whatever we want to do, and request others people to call it good or 'else I will find/build my church.' God Bless all, and have a happy Thanksgiving, for there is a lot to thank for!
Soon enough there will be enough fed up people who are tired of the Chauvinistic 'rulers' of the world's religions and they will go out and form their own churches. Until then, stuffy old men in funny dresses will control what everyone hears and believes about God.
The simple fact that the liberal agenda as promoted by those who seek ordination of women bishops is that such will continue to split the church even more so. Why not just let the Bible be the standard for ordination and let those old fudes that want the church to conform to the changing world standards go find themselves a hole to crawl into. They have no no no no fear of facing God at His judgment.
You haven't been paying attention. Yes the Catholic Church will lose some but we are pulling tighter and stricter to the doctrine as we have for 2000 years. It isn't our Church to change. It is His Church it will stay true to His teaching until He returns. Get it
The Holy Scripture has different saying though in which the Scripture has welcomed the female prophets, teachers, leaders, preachers, teachers, and church builders, e.g. the community in the Corinth, the female helpers of Apostle Paul. Their point view is differed from what the Scripture has said.
Please do not blame the Holy Scripture, and do not blame the church, but blame those who run the church . . .
..which is the same as blaming the church. The members of the church are of the church. If they choose to continue to consider themselves members, then they become complicit.
First rule Billie: I don't know about the Anglican Church but the Catholic Church is neither solo scriptura nor solo fidei. It is a both and. Both scripture and faith not one or the other. It is not a church of the book although it did put the book together. It also has the writings it didn't put in the book. We call those tradition.We didn't put them in because they weren't divinely inspired. Every heresy you throw at us we have answered and you answer is incorporated into the Nicene Creed. Read it before you throw it at us so we don't have to answer the same question over and over again.
"Williams fears the church is busy engaging in a debate that mystifies much of the world" - How about "Thy will be done"?
First, who really attends the Church of England anymore, and maybe those that voted against were following the Biblical principles of men being in charge of church offices.
This, remember, is happening in England. They have some of the loveliest churches in the world, especially out in the countryside, some ten centuries old. The problem however is that most are empty. Over the past few decades the Church of England has lost all credibility with the populace. Churches are empty, mosques are full.
The C of E might continue to get press coverage, and periodically appoint a new Archbishop of Canterbury to lead them, but few ordinary people take them seriously any more. The traditionalists, with their heads in the collective sand, continue to rule, which is why the women lost out again.
In the Catholic Church and it's Sister, the Church of England, often times have stood on tradition rather that that the Biblical teachings. I think that some women, who ran churches in the 1st century and are mentioned in Scripture , would be quite amused if they saw how laden with non Biblical culture , male biased norms that have pervaded the church since. The responsibilities and duties of men and the restrictions on women, are in stark contrast to other segments of Scripture, saying there is neither male or female in Christ. Pecking order by gender is brought to bear, but, let's us be honest: women are told to submit, but , how many truly religious men act as they should towards them. Men are suppose to act like Christ did, which is to die for. Looking at my gender , too often, men, who express faith, demand being leader , but, fall short with regards to this paradigm. Way short.
Actually those women "deacons" from the first century were never ordained as the men were. It was a special need answered. Can you imagine in the first century a full body anointment done on a woman by a man. Steve have you ever read the whole quote about women being submissive to their husbands . Just to save you time you are supposed to love you wife as Christ loved his Church. You do remember he willingly walked to His death for that Church. Now do you think you are ready for living up to that part of the quote?