Wednesday, 21 November 2012

The vote against women bishops is a rare triumph for those unfashionable activities - pausing and thinking

I don’t feel strongly about Anglican women bishops one way or the other – especially as most of the male variety strike me as mealy-mouthed, testosterone-deficient nincompoops. We’ve had women priests in our local church and while they didn’t exactly set the congregation on fire, they weren’t disastrous. If I have any objection, it’s that their caring, compassionate, nurturing liberalism makes the Anglican church feel even more like a branch of social services rather than an organisation devoted to the spiritual health of its members.

I’ve noticed a tendency amongst female priests to favour feegood compassion over rational thinking: for instance, they tend to bang on about suffering Muslims while entirely failing to mention the Christians being slaughtered around the world by adherents of the Religion of Peace. But then, the same could be said of beardy old lefty, Rowan Williams, whose glorious reign as the forceful, charismatic, clear-headed leader of our church is so sadly drawing to a close.

Another objection to women priests is that being addressed by them in church reminds me of being back in kindergarten – “Now, Scott – that wasn’t a nice thing to say to Julian, was it? I think you should apologise to him for hurting his feelings…” etc. But, as the whole educational system appears to have been taken over by female socialists, that’ll probably only be a problem for men over 40, who grew up with male teachers.

I also thought the reaction of female priests to being defeated in the Synod yesterday – all that blubbering and sobbing and clasping each other for comfort – set an appalling example to the rest of us. Priests are supposed to be strong and calm and wise – they aren’t meant to go all flopsy-bunny just because they’ve suffered a bit of a setback. Some Muslim clerics seem determined to teach their followers that the way to deal with disappointment is to murder unbelievers – but the Christian church is about taking a deep breath, keeping calm, and carrying on: it definitely isn’t about making a spectacle of yourself by bursting into tears like some hysterical schoolgirl who’s been unfriended on Facebook.

No, the reason I applauded with delight when news of the Synod’s surprising decision was announced yesterday was that it represented a small –no doubt temporary – victory for conservative values: a slowing of the triumphant march (or gadarene rush) towards trendy progressivism in one of this country’s major institutions. The House of Bishops and the House of Clergy were all for it – conservatism has long been routed in the C of E, but a significant minority of the Laity want to pause for thought. Pausing and thinking are unfashionable activities these days, which is why they should be encouraged.

God bless the 74 members of the House of Laity who stuck to their principles and refused to be stampeded by smug, finger-wagging liberals – here’s hoping they can find the inner strength to resist the ludicrous bullying tactics being employed by their lefty leaders, who are evidently on what lefties always do when they lose a vote on any issue dear to their hearts: ignore democracy and make people vote again and again until they get the result they want. After all, that’s the European way.

If I’d had any doubts about this being a welcome result, Rowan Williams dispelled them by bleating about the church appearing “wilfully blind” to modern trends and priorities – because that’s music to my ears! To hell with modern trends and priorities.

As for David Cameron being “very sad” about the vote – well, I’m very sad that you’re the leader of the Conservative Party, Dave, but we all have our cross to bear.


  1. We used to have an A of C called Runcie. He was in the Scots Guards during WWII, was a tank commander,killed the enemy and was awarded an MC. He died in 1991.I wonder what he would think about all this bollocks about female bishops and gratuitous slobbering? God Save Us.

  2. I'm not sure his citation for the MC involved his killing any one himself. I think it was more about leading his men bravely, which undoubtedly he did. Whether he was any good as A of C, I have no idea but any one who is not a Marxist with a beard starts off at an advantage with this lapsed C of E sinner. The last one failed on both counts.

  3. Well, according to Wikipedia (and when was it ever wrong?) he did earn the "Killer" Runcie sobriquet bestowed on him by Auberon Waugh (and when was he ever inaccurate?):

    "He earned a commission in the Scots Guards during World War II, serving as a tank commander and earning the Military Cross for two feats of bravery in March 1945: he rescued one of his men from a crippled tank under heavy enemy fire, and the next day took his own tank into an exceptionally exposed position in order to knock out three anti-tank guns. As a result, he is unique among modern Archbishops of Canterbury in having killed fellow human beings."


    As for your objection to Marxists with beards, I suspect such a description might fit several of those women hoping to become bishops.