to be sad that we are not going to get women bishops?

[grovel]

Bugger

It's been pointed out in the religion chat thread that the people who should be in the General Synod aren't because the meetings are i'd-rather-chew-my-own-arm-off-than-sit-through-this kind of crap.

so, bascially, either a normal person is forced (coerced/persuaded harshly etc) to go onto the GS (and we're talking those who don't work because it's held during the day during the week), or it's full of cantankerous old men who really don't want women to do anything but stay at home cooking and cleaning. Because they're the only knobheads who are twattish enough to enjoy the fucking shambles and bollocks that makes up GS meetings.

I'm rather fucking fuming at this decision.

cory - well, of course most of the anti-women bishops people also don't accept the validity of women priests (or bishops who've ordained them) so they do think its about spiritual function - that women can't administer the sacraments.

and if we're going to get scriptural about it - there are shedloads of instances in the bible where the JKV put "men" meaning "men" (and not "people") when the Greek version said a word that meant "people of both men and women types" proving that in those times, there were more women involved heavily in all that sort of stuff.

it's held during the day during the week
that's really clever. Not.

Yeah, I get what you're saying dreamingofsun and HouseOfBamboo, and those were my thoughts too for a long time; it's just been very gradually over the years that I've reached a different understanding. So I don't delude myself that I'm going change anybody's mind with a couple of posts!

I'm not sure what the Church Of England's position is re. the Bible - but I know that different denominations hold different positions. Some churches believe that the Bible merely contains the Word of God; my denomination believes that the Bible in its entirety is the divinely-inspired Word of God, and that's my own understanding of it.

Clearly there are aspects of it that pertain to the society of the time - e.g. polygomy, arranged marriages etc which were not commanded by God but were commmon practices at the time - but the teaching re. women's role in worship is not just something mentioned in passing; it's a direct command. If Christians are just going to pick and choose which Biblical teachings to accept and to reject ones that are less palatable to us on the grounds that "they were written by men" then where do we draw the line, and why bother with the Bible at all?

I guess I maybe come across as being a bit passive, but I don't believe that because the Bible doesn't allow me to have the same role in worship as a man that that makes me inferior. Outside of public worship there's nothing that the Bible permits my husband to do that it doesn't permit me to do.

I only know that bit Grimma because I was interested in it myself, and there was just no way I could get to any of the meetings.

I expect you're right, Grimma, and it's more about who votes/decides on what occasion.

My comments were more aimed at Tuppence and her take of accepting the spiritual dimension of the Church as if everything decided by the church at any one moment was based on unchanging religious precepts.

I'm not sure what the Church Of England's position is re. the Bible

Flexible. The CofE is a broad church which ranges from conservative Evangelicals, some of whom will be bible literalists, through to 'sea of faith' types who don't even really believe in God. I guess the vast majority are somewhere in the middle

tuppence - the problem is that the minority that feel like you do have been allowed to overide the majority that feel like i do.

if god loves everyone i don't believe he would have a problem with women bishops. i think he would be above this silliness.

Sorry cory, just read your post - I was going to say I didn't realise that there were women vicars but realise that that is actually nonsense, I must have known, as even I've seen The Vicar Of Dibley! It's a poor excuse but I'm not in England and I'm from a Presbyterian background where we don't have that type of hierarchy - so I am a bit ignorant of the different titles. Sorry for general stupidity!

Anyway, that makes no sense whatsoever. Not saying I agree with female vicars but if you're going to allow a woman to be a vicar there's no justification for preventing her being a bishop. So it clearly is sexism and nothing to do with Scripture.

There are actually two strands of objection: the 'conservative evangelicals' who take the literal interpretation of the Bible (though as described above there are a fair few holes in their arguments) and the 'traditional Catholics' who are arguing about so called sacramental assurance - the idea that somehow all bishops are operating in an unbroken line of tradition from St Peter and consecrating women will somehow break that and make everyone's orders invalid. (On phone or I would try to explain it a bit more, but I find it really hard to get my head round.) It essentially amounts to the idea that women are somehow so contaminating that we can smash up the sacramental tradition where little things like the Reformation failed. It's also a good example of the Donatist heresy if anyone's interested.

Can you tell I think it's a rubbish argument?

yanbu.

how is it the church is not subject to the same laws on sexism, its all very crusty and old isnt it? the church will get left behind, people are moving forward, the church isnt.

Vicar, my response to that would be that God?s law over-rides all man-made laws and that as Christians we are called upon not to conform to the world; to be ?in the world but not of the world". You can?t apply secular humanist solutions to a spiritual problem.

I?m very conscious that I?ve probably commented too much already on something that isn?t really any of my business, as an outsider who isn?t that informed re. CofE practice and beliefs. So for that reason I think I ought to bow out now.

If I could make one final remark ? dreaming, I don?t believe that because God does not allow me to be a bishop that he doesn?t love me. He has shown His love for me in many ways!

I also wouldn?t dismiss anybody else?s beliefs if they are sincerely-held.

dreaming, we might not agree but I don't doubt that your beliefs are as genuine as my own and that we are both doing our best to obey God?s word according to our different interpretations of it. I have strong reasons for my own beliefs; they are not a result of a knee-jerk prejudice but were arrived at after a great deal of reading, meditation and prayerful consideration ? as I?m sure yours were too. So I wouldn?t dismiss either of our positions as ?silliness?.

I didn't actually know you could be CofE and biblical literalist. How does that work? What about the bits of the Creed that aren't biblically literal? And if you don't believe in the Creed, what do you do?

I'm going to say something really contentious now. I don't believe the bible is the literal actual word of God. The bible to me is a number of accounts, from various people telling their story of how God revealed himself to them or to others. Because these people will have rationalised their experience to a degree, based on the world they were living in at the time, which was dominated by men, with women taking subservient roles, and often considered of little or no importance, it's not hard to see how perhaps the word of God is not recorded quite as literally as some people try to read it with respect to women.
The bible has also been translated a huge number of times, also influenced by the interpretations of the people who translated it. Given that these translators would also have been almost exclusively male, it's easy to see how the bible we have today has perhaps diverged from the original meaning.
Lastly, who chose the books which make up the bible? Which texts were discarded, by whom and for what reasons?
We will never know the answer to any of the above, but I do believe we should take this into consideration when we read the good book.
It is my belief that women should use the gifts which God gave them. If they feel that they have been called to the clergy, then why not? If we can accept women priests, why not women bishops? It's like saying a woman can be a doctor, but cannot be a consultant because she is a woman. Quite simply ridiculous.

I wish more people believed that the bible isn't the literal word of God roger. The world would be a much better place.

rogersmelly - well, if the bible can't be trusted on this point, which points can it be trusted on, really? In putting any interpretation on it at all, you just end up with the usual pick and mix which suits the agenda of the day.

I agree with that roger. I've not personally met anyone Anglican who didn't, including all three priests at my church (two male, one female, since you ask).

Btw, another thing about the laity - my mate is a deeply committed Anglican who teaches Sunday School, organizes all sorts of things, and really cares. But like lots of people our age, she's lived in about five different places in the last ten years, so apparently she's not eligible because you need to be a church member of 'good standing', which her local people have decided (or possibly this is a rule, we don't know) means 'have been at this particular church for donkeys' years'.

Vicar... perhaps you should have a namechange to BishopInATutu?

Tuppence - but, 'pay unto caesar' - christians aren't immune from the laws of the state. Sure, religious people can break the law if they think it contravenes Gods law but they must be prepared to take the consequences rather than thinking that the law of the land doesn't apply to them.

In the case of sex discrimination, religious groups have been exempted ... perhaps this would not have been the case if we didn't have an established church with some power and much influence.

I think the bible can be trusted. I just think that sometimes you have to look at the message which is being given to you by what you are reading, and consider its application to modern day life as opposed to the environment in which the original message was given. Prayer helps.

Yes, I think you have to try to interpret as best you can. Theologically I think it's guided by the Holy Spirit, that's the idea, isn't it? But IMO it is dubious (polite word) to claim you can't use common sense or your convictions of what's right and what's wrong. And yet I think some people do insist on this - I know people who say yes, it feels wrong to stop women being priests (somehow, you get the idea it doesn't feel very wrong to them ...), but still, it's what the Bible says so we gotta do it.

I think if you're interpreting a piece of text, you need to be honest about why you'll happily discount some bits and not others.

I think there are people who genuinely, and in a spirit of complete honesty, think women shouldn't be priests based on their understanding of the faith. But I think there are far more who just like the idea and are aware it's not really right.

btw I agree with the view that the bible's content will be skewed by the political and social views (and agendas) of the person writing it, how could it not be?

LRD - is there anything in the Creed which is actually contradictory to the bible? I would guess literalists would be ok with additions.

Would they? Ok.

In that case I expect they're ok, but I don't follow how it would work to say you're a literalist, but you're also part of a church that recognises tradition.

I think this decision is disgusting. There is no way the CofE should be allowed to be an employer if it does not respect equality and anti-discrimination laws. What have I missed? Do Bishops not get paid?

I'm always thankful that I'm an atheist, but last night and today I am even more so. Shame on the CofE for this decision