Women Bishops... why all the fuss?

[Chil1234]

Once again, the Anglican church seems to be tying itself up in knots about something and nothing. Women OK as priests, it seems, but not suitable bishop material and therefore elaborate exemptions are being discussed for 'traditionalists'. (Don't get them started on gay people...) The ABofC is allegedly on the verge of packing it all in. When it's a total eye-roller & a turn-off for most of us, it's a mystery why it is so important for some Anglicans to keep pouring oil on this fire. Bad PR. Bad for recruitment. Anyone got the inside track? Any CofE people out there who would be genuinely upset to have a woman as a bishop?

Daftpunk, it's not a job I'd want myself, but I can't respect a religion which stubbornly refuses to allow women to take do job because of something in the bible. The devil can quote the bible as they say. 50% of congretations are female aren't they?

You can't re-write history, Jesus was a man and priests are here to represent him, it's really as simple as that.

I'm sure the bible according to Harriet Harman would please alot of liberals...but most sensible people like to keep things traditional. Y'know I'm all for womens rights and equality..(although the feminist movement has done alot of harm imo)....but there are some areas where women really need to stay out...and one of those areas is the priesthood...

...How many men want to be nuns..?

they are called monks!! or had you forgotten that?

"most sensible people like to keep things traditional."

Thankfully that's blatantly not true.

Christianity has evolved throughout time. If it didn't we'd still be doing services in Latin, having tonsures with the front part of the head shaved, following the Pope (if you're CofE), allowing priests to marry (if you're catholic) and not wearing clothes of mixed fabrics.

So most sensible people have allowed Christianity and the understanding of the Bible to change over time.

Most "traditionalists" do not want to literally roll back the clock and stick the faith to exactly how it was many years ago. Rather they want to stick to very particular aspects of the faith while accepting that others have changed. So even the most ardent of "traditionalists" is actually reasonably progressive and does accept that some things have changed.

Daftpunk, have you ever seen that episode of the West Wing where Jed Bartlett responds to an anti-gay Christian?

Perhaps you could explain why the verses from the Bible he mentions contradict each other. And why 'traditionalists' are happy to ignore the Bible when it comes to selling their daughters into slavery, or working on the Sabbath?

Most traditionalists don't live in wattle and daub houses, and seem happy to have central heating, drive cars and send their kids to school etc. etc. etc. They are only 'traditionalist' when it suits them.

There was a great scene from Greys Anatomy where Torres (can't think of her first name) father comes to visit her and starts quoting the bible at her. Every single thing he says she trumps it with a counter quote! I am not a huge GA fan, usually think it's a bit mawkish, but that was excellent. Would love a transcript of that scene.

Look at Henry VII, founder of the CofE. He used a verse from Leviticus to build a case for having his marriage annulled, on the grounds that it forbids marrying your brother's widow. He managed to ignore a verse elsewhere in the Bible that says you MUST marry your brother's widow (in order to provide for her).

Actually, that means the 'traditionalists' who object to women Bishops are carrying on the work of the founder. Although I'm not sure I'd want to use Henry, a wife and priest serial killer, as a model.

Oops, Henry VIII! Henry VII was pretty darn blameless.

"He managed to ignore a verse elsewhere in the Bible"

Those that say the priests should be men as all the Disciples were men similarly manage to ignore that at least some of those Disciples were also married when they say that Priests should be celibate.

Every Christian sect is based upon selective interpretation of the Bible rather than a strict literal following.

Even the most ardent Catholic traditionalist would be viewed as a dangerous upstart by Christians from the very times that the traditionalist claims they should be following.

I'm not saying anything about Women Priests, just that a having a debate about the issue and possibly changing things is in fact the one truly "traditional" aspect of Christianity.

In fact if you won't to be truly traditional wasn't the founder of Christianity himself all about changing the order of things?

My take on it is this:

Over recent years, the Church of England has become increasingly stratified into various internal parties / wings.

These parties / wings have become increasingly tribalistic in nature. All tribes need boundary-markers, and in this case, the boundary-markers which have emerged are issues of sexuality (i.e. what to make of women and homosexuals). Each tribe can cite Bible verses and various bits of rationale to back up their views, but what they're basically doing is re-establishing tribal identity, by defining themselves as aganist the other ('those liberals.../the evanglicals.../the traditionalists').

The Archbishop sees all this and is trying desparately to keep these tribes as one group (no inside knowledge here, just conjecture), hence what looks like faffing about. Hostility between the tribes has hotted up over the last twenty-odd years, and poor old Rowan is in the middle of it.

What the CofE needs (again, this is my take) is to rise above such in-fighting and thrash out an inclusive Christian identity that rises above boundary-fixated tribalism. When I've figured out how to do that, I'll get back to you...(says she who is hoping she won't look too ridiculous in her dog-collar once she finishes training for the priesthood...)

Sorry, I've just realised that I'm not a very good PR person for the Church of England here. Let me quickly add that the vast majority of Anglicans aren't all hostile and warring, they're just good Christian people who want to go to church on a Sunday - it's the extremists at either end that are driving this issue. It's just that the extremists seem to have got more vocal in recent years...I wonder why that is?

ROFL clockface

as for extremists getting more vocal - it's a general upsurge in interest in religion wordwide, and expecially fundamental religion.

oh and good luck with the training have you talked to justa?

Just for the edification of those who wrongly assume that all Christians suffer from institutionalised sexism, Here is a link to the blog of the current President and Vice President of the Methodist Church in the UK.

Their names are Alison and Eunice and they are both, as far as I can determine, female

Methodism has had female clergy at the highest level for years and years and years. I am well aware of all the arguments laid out above, but frankly have no idea why the Anglican church is making such a meal of it. Times change. The church needs to change. There were some very, very prominent women among Jesus' inner circle and even in the early church (possibly despite St Paul's best efforts). Get over it!

I'm not a christian but do any believers look at this kind of interminable 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' stuff and think that if Jesus ever made a reappearance, and saw what a dog's breakfast the various factions claiming to represent him had made of his fairly simple teachings, he'd slap his hand to his forehead in disbelief?

Yes, Chil, I do, and I am not a believer.

I can see no reason why women cannot be Bishops in the CofE; St Paul was a misogynistic bastard, and also contradicts himself 'there is no Greek nor Jew, male nor female, we are all one in Christ', so all that guff from Timothy can be ignored.

JC had many female followers; appeared to women first, post resurrection; and from the gospels seems to have been intent on upsetting the religious order of his day. It was only with the rise to power of the Roman church that women became marginalised.

Consecrating women priests meant that a woman bishop would be the next logical step. There are some women priests whom I would not like to see as bishops, but in the main, if a woman can do the job, then she should be allowed to do it. I think women bring something to the ministry, especially on the pastoral side that men do not.

Agreed Chil. Not that I can claim any particular insight here, but you know, having read the gospels fairly thoroughly the picture of Christ is of someone who had no truck with bigots or religious pomposity or those overly concerned with an outward display of 'I'm a better believer than you'. He criticised those who held power and ministered to those who were despised - lepers and (shock horror) even women.

ha ha edam...like it

(the west wing link)

Glad you enjoyed it.

Loved West Wing! There was also a great episode about Abbey explaining Isaac and Ishmael. Rumor has it that it was the program's response to 9/11.

Isn'tItFun, yes I have talked muchly to Justa! She is one fab lady.

I think SolidGoldBrass summed it up the best. Lol

I am sure it looks like a lot of fuss about nothing to those outside the CofE. But theologically speaking, it is as important as the vote to ordain women was in 1992. Anglicans, as Christians, prayed over that decision for many years.

The Archbishop is between a rock and a hard place with this one. He is a man of immense learning and personal holiness, and he has to minister to the whole Church, many of whom do not share his belief that the priesthood is open to men and women. Arrangements already exist for those who cannot accept the ministry of female priests, and what Rowan Williams and the Synod have to do is decide what arrangements should be made for those who cannot accept the ministry of female bishops. Some kind of alternative oversight, involving the "flying" bishops, is suggested.

Personally I think that the Church can only benefit from female bishops in the same way that it benefitts from female priests. None of the theological objections really stand up to scrutiny. Our diocese recently welcomed Bishop Mary from the diocese of El Camino Real in the US and she was a model of episcopal behaviour; after a few minutes it was irrelevant whether she was male or female.

Clockface where are you training? I am just at the stage of thinking about it, and it is all a bit scary and new to me at the moment.

lanky - one thing to bear in mind. My colleague's mother is a vicar and doesn't get paid a bean - because her husband is a doctor! I was astonished but my colleague says it is quite common for the church to try to avoid paying women. Smacks of the worst of pre-76 sex discrimination to me.

Lankyalto, I'd rather not say here as it might make me a bit too easily identifiable in RL - don't know if the CofE powers-that-be read MN thought!

Can we PM?