Slee claimed that the archbishops of Canterbury and York were “intent on wrecking” the candidacies of John and Nick Holtam, who was married to a divorcee, “despite the fact that their CVs were startlingly in an entirely different and better league than the other two candidates, and probably every one of the new bishops I can recall in the past 15 years”.
Church decides to follow its own rules on sexuality when appointing bishops.
The gay bloke doesn’t get to be one nor does the one married to a divorcee.
Camilla doesn’t get to be Princess of Wales because she’s a divorcee.
Shrug, their gaff their rules, nu?
Tsk, get with the times, old chap! These days it’s “their gaff, Twitter mob’s rules”. Do try to keep up!
The gaff’s got money, so they want in.
A gay man in a celibate relationship with a gay man? i mean theoretically it could happen i suppose.
There is no way for the CoE to be half pregnant. Either they hold to Christian traditions or they don’t. They have chosen not to. Fine. They are a social club not a real religion.
The rest is meaningless quibbling. You don’t let your boyfriend have anal sex and then claim to be a virgin.
“their gaff their rules, nu?”
‘Their gaff, their rules’ can’t apply to the official state religion of the UK. Disestablishment is one option, treating people in a way acceptable to the secular majority is the other.
“Disestablishment is one option, treating people in a way acceptable to the secular majority is the other.”
And actually following their faith would be the third.
Person shocked that the opposition draws from the same playbook as them. Consternation, uproar.
“Either they hold to Christian traditions or they don’t.” None of the other Churches holds to Christian tradition so why should the poor old CoE?
Dave – “Disestablishment is one option, treating people in a way acceptable to the secular majority is the other.”
Stoning Gay people to death probably isn’t fair off being more popular than Gay Bishops.
dearieme – “None of the other Churches holds to Christian tradition so why should the poor old CoE?”
So says the atheist who claimed the Bible does not contain an account of the Crucifixion? By all means, I do enjoy atheists telling everyone what Christianity really means. What is your basis for that claim?
Sorry, which Christian tradition are they not holding to? And does tradition count or the bible?
“a celibate relationship”
Not possible. “Celibate” means “not in a relationship”. If you means “in a relationship but not having sex”, there’s a perfectly cromulent word for that, and it’s “chaste”.
Before shouting at Dearieme, on what basis do you sat that the CofE is no longer a real religion?
if you think that the CoE is “the official state religion of the UK” then I deduce that you are English and carry that peculiar English gene that ensures that you are forever barred from understanding the history and constitutional arrangements of the UK.
“So says the atheist who claimed the Bible does not contain an account of the Crucifixion”: where did I say that? Link please.
Well done to the Graun – an entire article whinging, which contains within it the response to the complaint. Of course he has been passed over – if he (or anyone else) doesn’t like it they should take it up with the Archbishop, or with the communion in general (a bit difficult to get an answer from them, though).
Martin – “Sorry, which Christian tradition are they not holding to? And does tradition count or the bible?”
Well, all of them. If they decide that secular society determines what they believe they do not believe in anything.
Jack C – “on what basis do you sat that the CofE is no longer a real religion?”
On the basis that they are making up as they go along. Either they hold to the Truth. Or they don’t. If they want to admit they don’t, that is fine by me. But they don’t get to be treated as if they do.
But, which “Truth”?
All of the main Christian churches have modified their beliefs over time, and in quite radical ways.
Whether or not vicars can be female, or bishops gay is scarcely central to the Christian message. And neither are vicars and bishops.
I infer from SMFS’s silence that he accepts that he lied when he said I claimed “the Bible does not contain an account of the Crucifixion”. It was rather dim of him to lie on a thread when he knew I was reading it.
So Much For Honesty. Or was he simply being stupid? We may never know.
Try reading the Bible *before* saying what it coes not contain.
Oh dear I misread.
Apologies to dearieme (assuming that he/she was *not* that stupid).