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 Methodist Church has had women at all levels of leadership for a long time.

I am CoE. I think the current furore is ridiculous and serves only to make the Anglican church look pathetic. I'm not against women bishops, I'm against bishops, full stop. No place for hierarchy following Jesus, in fact I believe he had a thing or to to say about people jostling for position.

I disagree LS, I think religious hegemony is important. I can think of another religion where it seems that any Tom, Dick or Harry can stand up and proclaim himself an expert and encourage his supporters to go and do some terrible things in the name of his (distorted version of) religion, and there seems no hierarchy to nay-say.
A leadership which holds its congregation to a central moderate, measured, reasonable, etc etc position is a good thing, even if it does tie itself up in ridiculous knots occasionally.

I think if Jesus came tomorrow he'd be much more interested in what each of you was doing with your lives, rather than the knots and wrangles the CofE gets itself into!

I think if people examine their hearts and true motives, and still hold to what they believe, then they should be allowed to do so with integrity. Those who want women bishops and those who don't.

As an aside, those fighting for 'equality' for women I think have done women a huge injustice in the long term. I would much rather hold to the 'different strengths/different roles but same respect' school of thought (which I believe is Biblical - and Paul was not a misogynist).

I'm with Merry

You're not going to like this, but the argument also goes back to Adam and Eve:

18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
...But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."

Eve took the initiative in the garden when she was tempted by the serpent, and look how that turned out. Evangelicals take a pretty literal view of the Bible, and if you do, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that a woman should not be the head of a man (in spiritual and marriage relationships).

"Wives submit to your husbands as to the Lord..."

Are your toes curling yet? (well you did ask)

PS- I don't mind if there are women bishops. I pray that God will bless them as he has the good work of many women vicars. But I still don't think that it is the Biblical ideal, and I don't want to be overseen by one- it should be able to be an issue of conscience, like Merry says.

Just looked at the last couple of posts and of course this is the problem that puts so many people off religion.

Women have to stay at home in their traditional role? What if they absolutely hate doing that and would be much happier out at work while their DH is the sort of person who is fantastic at staying home with the kids?

How anyone can argue that forcing people to adhere to strict gender roles as proscribed a couple of milennia ago is beyond me.

When people decide to take the bible literally it's funny how they still pick and choose which bits to follow and which to disregard or reinterpret.

robberbutton why would my toes be curling? I know plenty of people who live in the way that you describe (the wive submits to her husband in all things) due to their religious beliefs.

Either Jesus is about love, or he isn't.

Forcing people to do things that make them miserable simply because they were born with one set of gonads rather than another does not sound like it has anything to do with love to me, and much more to do with disregard (at best) or hate (at worst).

I feel sorry for Rowan Williams - very difficult situation. I personally don't think there is any 'real' argument against women bishops, certainly not within the gospels - women were involved with Jesus' ministry throughout, and many of the 'key moments' were witnessed by women, even though this would have given them less credence in 1st Century Israel.

However, Rowan Williams must also be trying to avoid the seemingly inevitable schism that is coming, as it really could break the church apart. He is already wrestling with the African churches threatening to break away on account of the American churches (gay bishops etc).

My solution to the women bishops problem would be this. Have the "flying bishops", but have enough of them that ANY parish can have access to one if they have a problem with their bishop. Believe it or not, male bishops can also be a problem to parishes, and if so, a 'flying bishop' could be a fantastic solution. This would therefore avoid the situation of having litigation suggesting that a female bishop is in some way 2nd class, but would enable parishes to 'opt out' of being under their appointed bishop, for whatever reason.

But what difference to bishops make to local parishes? I mean, really?

Other than avoiding Xmas and Easter services because I dislike his sermons, Tom Wright has never made a jot of difference to me in Durham.

If you have a problem in your church, having a sympathetic bishop can be really important, as someone who you can seek advice from, and in extreme cases, seek help from, if you have a problem, say, with your vicar.

robberbutton it often comes down to interpretation, though. The literal meaning of that word 'helper' is not as clear cut as that, and in fact implies something more like 'supporter' or 'alongsider'. So looking at that passage in a different light, you could see God scratching his head saying 'hmm, seems the bloke can't get on very well alone, needs someone very special to be there with him or he'll crumble away.' So there is woman, not as a lesser being created to be a doormat, but an equal person, again created in God's image.

Same with those passages quoted above from Corinthians and Timothy - contextually can be read very differently. In fact, contrary to some opinion, Paul was not a misogynist, but a liberator, like Jesus was. Read some feminist theology on the subject, it's fascinating.

I'm all for women bishops. I do see how some struggle with this but can't help thinking that if they educated themselves a little more they may see what Jesus was all about, and it sure isn't a squabbling over petty things church. I do despair sometimes of how the CofE comes across.

Justa, I didn't realise that re women vicars and salaries etc. I'm pretty shocked tbh. I know a lot of women curates and vicars but have never come across that.

I don't think there is anything biblical against women. The Genesis extract quoted is a story written by people in a particular society, for particular readers - a society in which women were SO unequal that it wouldn't have occurred to them that equality was even desirable.

In the New Testament, you can find parts of Paul that appear anti-women, but again, read them in the context of the society, and the people they were written to. Paul's letters are written to specific congregations, and weren't written 'as part of the bible' iyswim.

As far as what Jesus says, he never says that women are inferior etc, or shouldn't be leaders, and in fact he gives them more prominence than would be expected, even when it brought him criticism and censure.

Having said that, I do understand that people can find women priests difficult, because of the symbolism of them 'representing' Jesus. I don't personally go along with that, but I don't see a problem with having 'flying bishops' available to parishes that have a problem with their 'allocated' bishop - for whatever reason.

The response of some of the vicars puzzles me. They say that they will go over to the catholic faith - why not go over to the catholic faith now?

The way I see it is their CofE faith cannot be that strong that it takes the vote in of women bishops to make the choice to convert to RC.

I'm a catholic and my priest is one who was CofE and wonder why he came over to us. He has said in his sermons that it is because he knows that it is the true religion - well, what took him so long to realise?

For many in the C of E, their beliefs are virtually identical to the RCC. A sticking point is often the authority of the pope, but that doesn't trouble everyone. Many converted to Roman Catholicism at the time of the introduction of women priests. My mum has just told me that her RC church received an Anglican vicar into the RCC only yesterday.

Some churches want to take their entire parish over to Rome, and hence are looking for the Ordinariat, which I don't think has been completely set up.

Genesis 1:26-28 doesn't mention ribs or being a helper.

"26 Then God said, ?Let us make man [1] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.?

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

Also -
"Footnotes
[1] 1:26 The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam "

www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+1:26-28

There is no reason at all why there should not be woman priests or bishops in the CofE - it is a 'man' made religion which thereby naturally can mould and adapt to changing mores, tastes, predilictions etc - the rules of the club can be changed so to speak.

ISNT
"Women have to stay at home in their traditional role? What if they absolutely hate doing that and would be much happier out at work while their DH is the sort of person who is fantastic at staying home with the kids?

How anyone can argue that forcing people to adhere to strict gender roles as proscribed a couple of milennia ago is beyond me."

I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that women need to stay home. This is a whole other topic - but just wanted to point out that whilst I do believe in gender differences, and the man being 'the head' of the woman, I don't subscribe to women staying home. I go to a church where the vast majority of women work (though I personally have chosen not to, as have many non Christian mums I know).

"As an aside, those fighting for 'equality' for women I think have done women a huge injustice in the long term. I would much rather hold to the 'different strengths/different roles but same respect' school of thought "

What does that mean then? I took it to mean that the woman cares for the home and children. Am happy to learn of another way that the "different strengths/roles for each gender" thing could be interpreted

Priests should not be able to "take over their whole parish" into the Ordinariat" or whatever. Not necessarily everyone in their congregation or on their electoral roll will agree 100% with what the priest's own position is, let alone everyone in the actual parish who live there. The majority of people in the parish might be just as happy with a female vicar but never get a chance to have one. Congregations don't belong to the vicar; and if they leave the C of E for another church, neither do the church buildings in any way come with them.

The first century in Palestine was another time and place. We do things differently now. We no longer stone people to death, for instance. Women are no longer chattels

I spend a large proportion of my time hanging around poorly-attended cathedrals as DS is a cathedral chorister.

This sort of debate serves to remind only why the church is an irrelevance to most people - in fact 99% of people. Why would anyone tie themselves into the mores of first century Palestine?

And all this Christ only chose men as his apostles stuff - well either Christ was a product of his times and needs an update - or he's a myth that needs deconstructing. I refuse to subscribe to a theory that women are a sub-species. I leave that sort of 'thinking' to BNP voters.

Some interesting points on this site.

DandyDan, never meant to imply that the whole parish would necessarily go over, but it is possible that many would want to follow their vicar, who is their spiritual mentor and shepherd. When the Ordination of women (OoW) first happened, this happened to a church where a friend worshipped - and it split the parish down the middle, with many leaving the church altogether. And as you say, they could not take the church buildings with them. There is a FiF parish not that far from me, where there are people there who are pro-OoW - I know this because I attended a joint service with them, and THREE of them tried to convince me to go for ordination myself!

And as for male headship - its a nonstarter with me - our marriage is based on love and mutual respect - DH knows I'm always right, and I respect him for that

Quattro, I think the apostles were all men, simply because there was no point in that time and that place getting women along to 'spread the word' - they would have been ridiculed, and probably been in serious danger. As it happens, some of his closest friends were women, and he was massively ahead of his time, in that many of the 'key moments' were both witnessed and reported by women.