Plans to consecrate women bishops in the Church of England have been delayed by at least four years in an attempt to avoid mass defections by opponents of women’s ordination.
Church legislators have backtracked on a decision made by the General Synod, the Church’s governing body, last year to consecrate women bishops with minimal concessions to opponents.
The Church will now be asked again to approve the plans for “super bishops”, which were rejected in July last year and which will create a new class of bishop, operating in traditionalist zones “untainted” by the spectre of women bishops.
There will be no “Super” bishops….Hmmmmm. Maybe stop calling some of them “Arch” bishops then, right? I guess the term “Epi”-scopos will no longer be used? Because that could lead to the term “Super”-visor which means the same thing, and we just banned that. How about “Presbyterian” to describe the whole thing? Or just “Really, really lame”? Wait four years and the thing will die down, that’s pretty much what the ECUSA folks told themselves about opposition to WO in the US between 1976 and 1980. And it really worked well. The Brits are a quick study.
I have gotten wholly lost here. For most of you, this will seem like a stupid question, but can someone tell me why the C of E and other Angllican churches ordained women in the first place? Why do it? What was the necessity? Why wasn’t the answer simply “no, we don’t ordain women?” This really seems as if it should have been a rather simple straightforward problem. I’m sure I am being obtuse, but I still don’t understand why this row began at all. Larry
[i] Comment deleted by elf. This is not a thread on women’s ordination and the comment might send the thread off topic. [/i]