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?

The traditionalists have two objections:

(1) When women priests were allowed, it was agreed at the time that this did not mean that women bishops were automatically going to be OK. Many traditionalists agreed/abstained from the original decision on women priests on that basis. Therefore they now feel that the mainstream has gone back on its word and is now presenting women bishops as a fait accompli.

(2) The fundamental conceptual objection is about the Apostolic Succession, which traditionalists believe does not encompass women, given that the first disciples were all men. Only bishops can ordain priests. St Peter was the first bishop, he ordained priests, and other bishops, the latter who went on to ordain further priests and bishops etc etc. A woman priest can minister at the end of a long succession from St Peter but she can not continue it. A woman bishop however, could continue it, and traditionalists feel this is a breach of the 2000 years of the Apostolic Succession.

(3) The further objection is that the CofE is a global institution, encompassing many much more gender traditonal countries than the UK.

I pity poor old Rowan trying to find a way to be Christian and gracious to everyone!

There is another objection, in that by allowing women bishops, this will jeopardise ecumenical relationships with the RCC. I've heard this used as an argument on several occasions. However, for some reason this argument didn't apply to the C of E allowing divorcees to become priests!

I had a long conversation with my elderly next door neighbours about this. They are 'traditionalists' and TBH although I fully believe women should have an equal role in the whole of society I now understand why the 'traditionalists' believe what they do.

It is an issue of symbolism for them, not of equality. The two arguements are entirely separate in their minds. As others have said and as my neighbours say, Jesus was a man, he had male disciples and the word of God was passed down a male line to present day male bishops.

Women were active and important members of the early church back to St Paul but never priests.

To make this an arguement over equality totally misses the point. The 'traditional' and 'equality' arguements are just not on the same page, not even the same book. It will never be resolved for this reason.

The Anglican church is not tying itself in knots. The decision over women bishops has been made - what has not been agreed on is the provision for those in the church who cannot in conscience agree with it, and therefore will have difficulty working alongside those who do. The provision measure was voted through by the House of Bishops and the House of Laity but not by the House of Clergy. Further discussions are trying to resolve how people against women bishops might feel able to stay within the bounds of the Anglican church, without the tacit implication by such a provision that women bishops are wrong.

I agree that women can be both clergy and bishops. I don't agree that those who disgree should be able to "take their parishes" with them into some new formation, nor should they withhold their diocesan share (as various have already been doing for several years).

sigh, as a rule of thumb the church of england is always about 30-40 years behind the moral values set by the progressive secular world. The catholics about 100 years.

the CofE are making fools of themselves over this, and it would take a particular lack of humour not to laugh heartily.

In the real world we are just starting to see women be CEOs of major companies. I guess in about 30 years time the CofE will be fighting about female ARCHbishops.

Actually Beenbeta, its not totally accepted that there have never been women priests - there were certainly women deacons in the early church. In addition, there is some debate as to whether "Episcopa", as seen on some tombs, referred to the wife of a bishop or in fact a female bishop!

As a non-believer the only occasions on which my path crosses with that of a clerical-collared person at the moment is at the weddings and christenings of friends.

I could not give a flying fig, a rat's arse, a monkey's scrotum - nor any of the other freely available objects one uses on these occasions - whether the person in the cassock and the back-to-front collar has testicles and a willy or ovaries and boobs.

It's all so pathetic. Why can't the church do something useful rather than having these wrangles?

This is old men trying to hold on to power, and there is nothing more to it. Agree with ChickensH.

Not very 'christian' behaviour, and they are trying to hold back proper and beneficial progress in society and the church. Women priests are a very good development for the church, and this builds on that. There were also women priest and high priestesses in the past.

For anyone who thinks they have to be just like jesus to be properly chistian, I suggest they go and spend 40 days in the dessert without food and water.

As a committed Anglican I am hacked off with the wrangling on this issue, which should have been cleared up years ago. I recognise the need to be sensitive with people who have different views on things and explore ways to accommodate, but sooner or later they need to recognise that women will be bishops in the C of E. At that point (and we are at that point) dissenters either have to accept the change or find an alternative theological home. If I were ABofC I would phone up the Pope and offer to swap our misogynists for his pleasant gay priests - the C of E would certainly benefit from the deal.

And as for UnquietDad's hope that the church do something useful rather than having these wrangles - the church is doing a huge amount that is useful. At a parish level these debates don't cause too many ripples and most Christians get on with doing whatever good they hope they can do in their local context. But the press prefers to report "national church in crisis over X" than "local church runs soup run for homeless".

christian & just desert!

lol spending 40 days in the dessert really quite appealed to me

he he

Unquiet Dad

(1) Agree that it is presentationally embarassing. Many of us who are liberal christians do cringe.

(2) Don't forget that the church mainstream has actually accepted women bishops. The fuss is how we can stay friends with those who disagreed with it.

(3) The church does a HUGE amount that is useful, both within our own communities and abroad/in the developing world. Yes the C of E is an unwieldy and at times silly/laughable/biz institution, but do give credit where it is due! And I speak as one who has baked 5 cakes this weekend for a coffee morning in aid of an orphanage in India we send cash to.

"tradition" is nothing more than a euphmism for sexism. Of course it is outrageous to think a person can be a figure of authority simple she is not a he.

It's just sill and well past time to make it right.

People who cannot accept a woman as their surperior are sexist. You can use a lot of different words to dance are te subject. But, the fact remanis that they are by definition sexist as they want to restrict a persons freedoms by nature of her gender. And they want to do this in situation where her gender would have no ill impact on the job she is able to do.

If we were talking about soliers on the front line where physical strength and hygeine were issues, then i totally understand that men are better qualified. But this does not apply to role of a vicar or bishop.

I am COE, and if there are men (or women) who can not accept a bishop because she is a woman, then I would quite happily show him or her the door. Perhaps they would prefer Cotholicism, where such bigotry can find an abundance of company.

Oh, I'm sorry. Should have proof read. What horrible typos.

"tradition" is nothing more than a euphmism for sexism. Of course it is outrageous to think a person cannot be a figure of authority simple because she is not a he.

I've never said religious groups don't do any good - although I generally tend to think that people who do charitable, useful things do so because they are nice people, independently of the flavour of imaginary friend that have or don't have.

I just think all this wrangling is taking up a lot of news-space and a lot of time which could be spent doing other things. Amazing to hear women defending the church's sexism too...

Personally I find that people who say "let them go to the Catholic church" offensive. I would like to think that we could be open and forgiving of such eccentricity - because these are deeply and firmly held beliefs, and there IS room for them in the Anglican church. I do NOT agree with them, but as their beliefs have been the default beliefs of the church for at least 1000 years, if not all approximately 1980 years, then I respect their right to believe them and not be forced out. And lets face it, the RCs don't really want them either!

To me, there is no room for intolerance and bigotry on EITHER side.

Strix -

But this is not really about the question of whether we should have women bishops or not (the synod is in favour as are the vast majority of Christian). It's really about what we do with people who don't agree with that, and whether there is any place for them in the CofE.

It's too simple to say "don't agree with us? Then off you trot!" and "show them the door" (as you put it).

The challenge is to make the right and appropriate decision and at the same time to keep the fellowship of the church together and not squash out those of differing views.

UQ Dad

True, you didn't.

I agree, I don't think people do "nice things" because they are Christians, as you say. They do them because they are human.

The difference between us is that I see Christianity as an attempt to be an iteration/expression of/philosophy about what it means to be fully human;l I think you assume faith is always about a personal relationship with some sort of personable God who talks to us (he's never spoken to me, well not in any direct way, anyway).

I tend to think of my faith as a philosophy of living rather than as a series of supernatural events (in which respect I am agnostic and think it very unlikely that e.g. the resurrection really happened, which is not to say that the Resurrection story is not important and full of meaning) or as a personal relationship with some beardy William Blake figure up in the clouds.

" It's really about what we do with people who don't agree with that, and whether there is any place for them in the CofE."

No, there is not a place for them in the COE, and there shouldn't be in any other Christian religeon either. Disrimination on the basis of sex is not something that Jesus would condone.

So, as far as I am concerned, those who support sexual discrimination and show no remorse for it should go play nicely... elsewhere. Hope the door doesn't hit them on the way out.

bumps: well, I don't always assume that - it's just the main interpretation of what their religion "means" that I have heard more people say than any other. One person even said "I'm not religious, I just have a relationship with God." I opened my mouth, then caught DW's eye and decided it wasn't worth proceeding.

Have women bishops, for goodness' sake. You will eventually. May as well have it now rather than after 15 years of squabbling.

The tricky bit is that, if you've been working for an organisation for 30 years and the rules have always been X (which you were fine with), then they suddenly say "the rules are now Y - if you don't like them you can bugger off with no compensation", it's not exactly loving and compassionate of them, is it?

I don't think that the CofE should do a huge amount to make alternative provision, but I do think it's right that they are trying to find a way of being compassionate to the "losers" in this debate, even though I think those individuals are in the wrong to not accept women bishops.

UQ Dad

Well, I always find it a bit weird when people say they have a relationship with God too.

Just to be clear, I agree with women bishops, personally. Bring them on!

Bumps x

AMuminScotland

Agree. Just "showing them the door" isnt the right thing.

Bumps

Yes, I agree we should be as compassionate as we reasonably can be. But, that doesn't mean dragging the decision out for ages and ages and continuing to discriminate against women. The truth is the people who don't want women bishops are the ones with a problem. And, currently, we are holding women back to appease them.. That is backwards. It is time for a change. It isn't that I want to send peole packing. But, i accept that some will choose to go when Women are allowed to be bishops. You can't please everybody.

I'm Church of Scotland - where we did all this and managed to survive a while back - although we've got our fair share of "splitters", largely concerning what bits of peoples' bodies they want to rub against other consenting peoples' bodies and whether we should be "loving the sinner but hating the sin and certainly not letting them lead worship and marry people and things like that"

The "reporting" structure is different though which staves off some of the bigots traditionalists' angst.

Anyway, my personal feeling is that, if there was a second coming, Christ would be banging a lot of heads together and would be appalled at the things said and done in his name. A true shame.