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?

Clockface - I don't think I have CAT but if you want to email me I'm lankyalto at gmail.com

Hope the CofE don't read here - can you imagine their faces.........

edam - I think many female priests are able to be non-stipendiary by choice (i.e. don't get paid). Even the CofE isn't allowed NOT to pay women at all.

The whole issue shows the sorry mess that the Church of England is.

Hypocrisy and bigotry thrive. Very sad, as I personally have several lovely friends who are in paid employment within the Church of England. But as an institution, it's a bloody joke.

Justa - oh, I know, they try to get away with murder. I have no illusions about the intricacies of the church's bureaucracy.

Selection - to paraphrase Augustine, please not yet!!!! Just thinking and praying at the moment. Feeling a few nudges, trying to work out what to do about them. All very scary actually.

As Senua says - How can the queen be the head of the cofe but women can't be bishops?

the Queen is the Supreme Governor. In practice the AoC is the leader. If you are a vicar, you report to a bishop, not to the Queen.

The issue with female bishops as against female vicars is that they have authority over all the clergy in their diocese. One vicar only affects a single church, whereas a female bishop governs all the churches in an area.

There's a young vicar's blog here, might give more of a perspective on the thinking of those who oppose it: sbarnabas.com/blog/, specifically sbarnabas.com/blog/on-the-ordination-of-women/

Picking holes in that blog is like shooting very large fish in a very small barrel with a very large gun.

Also have you ever heard the theory that the more excuses and reasons a person has to give for something the less valid that thing actually is?

So picking just one point...

And the blogger brought it up.

Beards.

Orthodox priests would say that "Christ cannot be ?sacramentally? represented by a beardless man because Christ?s ?beardiness? is not incidental- its revelatory. (It tells us something about God) It would be silly on stage to cast a man in the role of Mary. It seems equally silly at Mass to ask a beardless man to stand in the place of Christ. He was a bearded man- and there is not avoiding that fact."

However other Christian sects got away from the beard thing, the beard was cultural and the nature of Christ and God eclipsed the issue of facial hair.

So in time some Christian sects will get away from the gender thing, the gender barrier was cultural and the nature of Christ and God eclipsed the issue of sex.

All the time they cling on to and fight for certain issues claiming "this is what makes us Christian" the actual nature of Christianity slips further and further away from them.

This is a perfect example of the stained glass ceiling.

Can I just point out that it's not the "UK anglican church" but the Church of England which has the problem with women bishops.

I'm in the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is the Anglican church in Scotland, and we have passed legislation to allow women bishops. We don't actually have one yet, as it's only been a few years since the legislation went through and there's only been one vacancy for a bishop since then, but the paperwork at least now says that women are no different from men in their eligibility to be bishops.

We also didn't put in any "get-out clauses" about women bishops (or women priests) to allow people to not accept them.

I do think the CofE needs to decide what they believe is right, and take the consequences. Sexism is not a requirement of religion, its just an add-on which many people like.

Can someone tell me how the church gets away with discriminating against women when it is illegal?
Does it need a rejected female bishop to go to court?
Please i am genuinley interested as to how they get away with this. Is there some kind of religious exemption from the current laws?

I don't think the discrimination laws apply to the internal workings of an organisation which you can choose to join. It's like golf clubs being able to be "men only". There are also things like single sex schools - you could claim that they discriminate against boys/girls but the law doesn't outlaw them.

But surely when applying for a job as a bishop you are entitled to the same protection against discrimination as any other job application?
Would they be allowed to exclude black people on this basis? Of course not so why women?

Women bishops are not a big issue for the vast majority of Anglicans, including most of those at the synod.

The difficulty for the church's leaders arises because the church, given its duty to preserve the umbrella of christian fellowship and not exclude anyone has to find some way of breaking bread with the elements of the Anglican church whose views are at the more extreme end of the spectrum.

If the church were a political party, or indeed any other modern institution, the party/company spin doctors would turn on those with the more extreme views, and get rid of them smartish.

But the church's role is always to be slightly counter-prevailing-culture, and therefore, although it would be easy and presentationally popular for Rowan Williams to slag off the extremists and make it clear that they were not welcome, it would not be the right thing for him to do as the leader and representative of the church.

So we are left with a presentational disaster and those of us who are normal middle of the road Christians do squirm with embarassment. However, better that we suffer a bit of embarassment than that we start behaving like any old ruthless modern institution and "get rid" of any people whose views we don't quite agree with.

CaroLondon

You are not actually an "employee" of the church if you are a priest/bishop. You are an incumbent of a parish/bishopric - which is similar to having the freehold of it. For tax purposes, priests are self-employed.

So the vast majority of anti-discrimination legislation does not in fact apply.

Bumps

OP "Women OK as priests, it seems, but not suitable bishop material"

don't know anything about this. What specific reasons are they giving for women priests not being suitable bishop material? I should think if you are suitable material for the priesthood, given experience and having proved your mettle on the job, you are also suitable bishop material.

It's not just a problem for the UK Anglican church but the repercussions for the worldwide Anglican communion. Women bishops (in UK) will cause major issues with the Anglican church in a lot of places - particularly Africa, where some of the sexism is stronger than here. Even though I think there are other governance structures, they do often still take their lead from AB of Canterbury.

Haven't read everything, but there is a bigger problem in the eyes of the traditionalists in that women bishops ordain priests (both male and female). If you do not accept that women can be validly ordained priest OR consecrated bishop, you are not going to accept the priests she ordains either.

Personally I am pro women priests and bishops, but I understand the need to provide for those who cannot accept their ministry. My mum is anti-women priests, she'd have a FIT if I were to be ordained (but MUM, you always said you WANTED one of your children to be ordained )

ZZZen - I think most of those who have a problem with women bishops also have a problem with women priests, but can find ways to stay in a church which has them as long as they don't have to deal directly with them, particularly serving under them. The tricky thing about bishops is that you can't get round the issue with the typical "fudging" which is traditional in the CofE. If the bishop of your diocese is a woman, then you are under her jurisdiction, like it or not. The attempts to find a compromise would mean that some of the priests in a diocese would not be under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop. And that would be pretty much as big a change in policy as having women bishops in the first place, since that's been the structure of the church for a very long time.

Meh. I tend to see these arguments as the last roar of the dinosaurs. My minister is a woman, and she is bloody good at it. I have met many men in the church that think because they serve God they are superior. Perhaps some men are drawn to the church for the social status they feel it gives them. Ultimately, though, they are a dying breed.

I see, thanks AMIS, but wasn't that all forseeable when the ordination of women priests was decided on? See the COE is in a difficult position but do think they must either have women priests or not, rather than have them but restrict them to a lower level in the church IYSWIM

I suppose they are counting on the passage of time to adjust people's thinking and acceptance of women inthe church hierarchy.

It's hilarious. All very Life of Brian. "Splitters".

so if the COE had a female bishop, some of the clergy in her diocese would abscond or feel justified in simply ignoring her decisions because they would not recognise her authority? Lay members who could not simply change parish to get away from a women priest since she would be running the diocesanb show would leave the church?

Is that kind of strength of reaction really likely?

Am not so sure that Africa could not cope with a female bishop tbh.

ZZZenAgain, yes it was foreseeable, but promises were made at the time, which are not now being kept, regarding preserving the right to males only club. I've heard it said that if that original promise had been made, then the C of E would not have had women priests at that time. Now of course there are a great number of women clergy in Synod.

Anyone else just want to say "play nicely, children"?

Yes I think it was always inevitable that having women priests would lead to the question of women bishops. How could it not? But at the time the women priests legislation went through, they were very careful to say "None of this means we're going to have women bishops". I agree that they probably hoped once people got used to the idea, and saw that women were perfectly capable of the job, that the resistance would be much less. And it probably is less than it would have been 17 years ago if they'd tried to get it all through in one go.

I am bemused about why women can't be bishops and this thread is quite helpful in explaining why they can't just sort it out.

As a non church person, I think it is a pity that these types of issues take up so many column inches. Churches can do a lot of good for the local community but to me as an outsider these wrangles are very offputting.