Every time the Church of England allows a gay man, who believes that women cannot be priests because Jesus and/or his disciples were not women, to be ordained to the episcopacy, they are stating, by the same logic, that Jesus and/or the disciples were gay. If they are going to use the logic of a five year old then they should, at least, have the integrity to apply that logic consistently.



  1. I am so glad that I was so naive about all this nonsense when I fell down the rabbit hole into the Land Episcopal. I’m not sure what I would have done if I’d been better informed. I suppose I could have started a cult.

  2. But you are a cult. I know because I’m a member. You say the word, KJ, and I will drop everything and follow you to the Amazonian Jungle. When are the men in spaceships coming to rescue us by the way?

  3. Well, the men are fabulous, but they don’t fly in spaceships. I’m not crazy. They drive 2012 VW Turbo Beetles.

  4. I really had to struggle to figure this one out (okay, I’m tired…) and just when I thought I did, I read the comments so far and now I’m REALLY flummoxed…

  5. What I can’t figure out is just how these people come to the conclusion that Jesus and the Twelve (not ‘the disciples’, as these were a wider group, and we can’t say whether the women would have been thought of as part of it or not) were priests, or analogous to priests. Jesus, OK, but he was unique; presumably these people aren’t claiming to be kings, or messiahs, or anything like that, so how can Anglican priesthood be analogous? Where’s the evidence that anyone ordained the Twelve as priests?

  6. Yes. It’s magical thinking and poppycock. The first Christians just commissioned people to do particular jobs as and when it was necessary. The faith is transmitted down the ages through the proclamation of the gospel, the charism being given to each new Christian by the Holy Spirit. The Apostolic succession is just an excuse for priests to claim a special status that Jesus never intended.