Should we have women bishops in the Church of England?

[uwila]

Following on from some comments on the child guru saya nurseries harm small children thread , I thought it was time I raise the subject in its own thread. Mumsnetter Beartime seems to think that it is woman?s role, according to scripture, to be submissive and serve her husband. Now I most certainly consider myself a Christian (Anglican), but I am really struggling to reconcile my commitment to these views as well as my very firm belief that women have a right to be equal to men in this world. And this brings me to the current debate of Anglicans Get Women Bishops Plan

If you are Anglican, do you believe women should be bishops? Do you believe that your primary purpose on this earth is to serve your husband?

Please somebody tell me that I am not alone in thinking these scripture were appropriate in the time in which they were written, but that it is right to think that need not be applied so literally to modern times.

got to take babe out now, but v interesting discussion, thanks!

sorry helen I didn;t mean to imply that you were silly, it was just me musing about Jesus as a woman.
My feminist mum always pointed out all the misogynist St Paul bits every time I had any churchy encounters, and one visit by some manic dodr-to-door types resulted in being told that evey mummy wonders if her baby boy might be The One, and every little girls hopes she might be the mummy to...you guessed it the new boy wonder. She has never stopped laughing with me about that for 30 years.

oh ruty what a cool story, could it be true? It might explain some things.

have to do some work now. i think it would take time to answer that ruty, i can answer it but not just now....

'agneow' (roughly) = ancient Greek for 'I don't know' (failed ancient Greek O-level, sorry for any mistakes)

so i've always understood agnosticism to mean 'not knowing'. A good thing to declare IMO.

"...people seem to asume that because Jesus was a man then only men can be in positions of leadership which to me doesn't make sense"

I totally agree. What is this nonsense about women can't be bishops because the desciples were all men? Eh? So? Why does that mean women can't be bishops? Or the pope?

there is a view uwila that Mary Magdalen was his favorite disciple but this has been suppressed by calling it blashphemy.

Three's a humorous skit by the actress Shirley King tomorrow (thursday) nite at the Unitarian Church Rosslyn Hill Hampstead London, about blasphemy, £5 at 7 pm there is a cash bar. She's my (new) friend so I'll put in a plug!

bump

i think there are a lot more similarities in the essential teachings of buddhism and christianity than the church would like to admit. I've no idea if that story is true Majorstress but it kind of fits the picture anyway!

bump

Uwila when I married my first husband I genuinely believed that I was meant to be a submissive wife and ran my family that way (fortunately I didn't have children). I think that for some people (including me at that time), knowing one's POSITION in a marriage/relationship is beneficial in that it simplifies relations and solves a lot of the arguments that occur in marriage (i.e. and anything we disagreed on, DH1 made the decision). But obviously it's just another means of oppression women by repressing questioning of the status quo. But I think that there can be a lot of happiness gained from following that biblical model of man=head - but it is the happiness of the simple-minded, perhaps.

(speaking personally of course )

Women Bishops: I belong to a parish which is anti-women priests although I personally am NOT of this mindset (it's just my local church!) and I am quite vocal in stating my opinion on the matter. I think one of the great things about the Church of England is it's willingness to listen to society and to developments in human thinking and learning and the ordination of women priests is fabulous. I can't see how those who are opposed continue to oppose it after 11 years. The church has not fallen apart. It is still declining but no faster (and no faster than other similar denominations). And women-ministers-in-training now make up over 50% of priests-in-training, I understand.

At the end of the day it all boils down to the vocal minority of Anglicans who appear to be obssessed by penises - (a) who's got them, and (b) where they stick them...

ok Ruty, an answer to your question about why throw out all christianity because of faults in the church.
and also to Majorstress about possibly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

First, I was very convinced by knowing a number of highly caring, loving, sociallly and politically active atheists. Christianity and other religions do not have any sort of monopoly on social justice, care for the planet and its inhabitants, etc. in fact I often find the atheist/humanist perspective more thorough in concern for the environment etc (for instance, many (all?) Christians believe that the world will end when God chooses, so really there's not the same imperative to conserve the planet's resources. For atheists and humanists, there is no such expectation, people feel they have to be proactive and work to change things because God isn't going to nip in and save or destroy things at the last minute. Yes there are many green christians but there is not the same urgency that there is for the humanists and atheists who believe that there is no other solution than human activity and concern for others.

Second. for me, personally, by the time I had discounted the authority of much of the old testament, various bits of the new testament (particularly, concerning gender, the letters of Paul and Peter - i am rusty on all that now but knew the details very well at the time, but also Jesus's behaviour himself - i used to think, why hadn't jesus just SAID something positive about women so that there would be no question about our right to exist beyond being containers and carers for the males of the species), discounted the often shameful and appalling history of the church with respect to the rights of women, people in developing countries, lower classes, slaves, homosexuals, etc; and discounted the current church and its preoccupations and priorities - all the "bathwater" - there was really so little "baby" left for me in Christianity it was not a viable living organism, to stick with the metaphor.

For me, if "true" Christianity is not manifested or sufficiently exhibited in Old or new testament, or christian history, or current church activity, it's really not very convincing. At some point I do think a religion has to be judged by the behaviour of it's followers. I don't feel it's enough to just take a few favourite bits from the gospels and say "this is the essence of Christianity - yes there are some very nice bits of the new testament and some nice bits in the old testament. social justice quotes from Isaiah, bits about Love from the new testament. Sheep and Goats parable. but for me, if you just take a few bits you find palatable, and discount the rest, you might as well stand in the humanist or atheist camp which can also say, yes there are some good opinions now and then in the bible, and occasional positive bits in religion.

and which also permits you to say, yes, a lot of christianity absolutely sucks. That is my personal view. after i left it, very reluctantly at the time, i realised very quickly just how much i disagreed with how much of it at a very fundamental level.

Coming late to this. Am CofE (ds's baptism is on Sunday , am all excited already), consider myself a feminist, and (unlike fennel) actually find the two positions quite easy to reconcile.
Fennel:
"i used to think, why hadn't jesus just SAID something positive about women so that there would be no question about our right to exist beyond being containers and carers for the males of the species"

• at the risk of being jumped on for heresy, I venture to suggest maybe he DID and it was left or edited out of the gospels as a bridge too far. And in fact, I think his position in the Martha/Mary argument (Luke 10:38-42) indicates he didn't see women just as 'carers for the male', but as perfectly capable of engaging with the big questions too. The stuff about submissive wifedom (I looked through the articles beartime posted on the other thread) seems to me to belong to a conservative (but, as morningpaper says, vocal) evangelical strand of Christianity, the same kind which would no doubt have advised me not to marry dh because a) he's an atheist/humanist and b) my parents were bitterly against it. This is by no means all of Christianity though.

yes

That's what I was thinking, we don't know what Jesus said about women, we have selected writings about his life, writen by men at a time when women were not in any way treated as equals, would they have considered it worthy of a mention?

Yes, so - from Foundintranslation's and Helen33's posts - maybe the gospels are an inaccurate and incomplete account of Jesus's life and views. I can certainly agree with that.

So either Jesus was limited by his time and background. Like most people, but not perhaps the case if he really was the son of God - wouldn't any God worth following have known better than to forget about or deem unimportant half the human race?

Or, the gospel accounts are too inaccurate a representation of Jesus's views to take seriously.

again, this is my conclusion, obviously not what everyone else is concluding but for me this is what it comes down to when you look hard at the arguments and evidence.

Of course surely saying women can be vicars but not bishops is the same as saying they can be teachers but not heads

at MP. It's only some gristle at the end of the day, isn't it. And don't they get het up about it! We have always walked a fine line in the C of E - choosing high church parishes with good music and an inclusive attitude to ALL worshippers, but also pro-women priests, is not easy. Currently we are in a church with bad music (ear plugs essential ) but warmth, friendship and inclusion for all, and a woman priest who is the best PP we have worshipped under as a family. Dr Jean for bishop! Yay!
And while we are at it, Dr Jeffrey John for bishop sometime soon as well. Disgraceful he was taken out of the running because he was a gay man in a relationship.

oh wow fennel, where to start! I do appreciate where you are coming from. But though i am not a good Christian by any means, I come from a line of priests all the way down [lucky me! ] and have been taught a very different kind of christianity to the one you describe. I have been taught that Christ urged us to make heaven here on earth, and that it was all here for us within our grasp, [i can go look for quotes later if necessary]. So passionate environmentalism should go hand in hand with a belief in Christ - again i think the fact it doesn't is for the convenience of human beings who want to exploit the earth for their own ends. My father, a priest, is passionately anti nuclear [weapons and power] and goes on marches and gets arrested fairly regularly! I think your ideas about Christians not being that bothered about the planet because its going to end do come from your evangelical experiences. But agree the Christian church is maddeningly blinkered to so many real issues.

My grandfather was sacked for a period of time in his priesthood for being far too involved with social justice issues - supporting strikes, causing too much of a`stir in an impoverished working class community. My father, who was campaigning for women priests in 1971, has often thought about leaving the church, because of the kind of things you describe. But they both are only a couple of people amongst many i have met who make me realise that maybe this Christian lark has something going for it after all. Christ as we know, said nothing about homosexuality being wrong, he did say in general terms, it is not up to us to judge. Why didn't he say more? Well, he was a product of his culture and time, and certainly I think with regards to women his actions speak louder than words, and there are many theologians who believe his close women friends/followers were also disciples. With regards to those of different ethnicities, he was very clear - the good samaritan, etc.

Of course religions do not have a monopoly on morality. Anything but. But i agree with what Helen and foundintranslation said, that the bible is a difficult piece of literature to interpret, and other people's interests and biases always get in the way of the truth. But just because the truth is all muddied and mixed up doesn't mean its not there somewhere. [I am beginning to sound like a reject script of the X files.]

OK, sorry for ramble!

Nice post ruty and what an impressive heritage. People often conveniently forget how many radical social reformers worldwide are and were Christians or of other faiths, and motivated by their beliefs to make a difference (nb everyone NOT saying adherents of any faith have a monopoly on social change obviously)

Message withdrawn

this arguement has kind of progressed since my answer, but just wanted to say, i don't know what Christ could have said more fennel to make you think he was not so flawed. Suppose an alien came to our planet tomorrow, [X files again!] suppose he/she had a wealth of knowledge far beyond our understanding, how would she/he go about telling us about it all? A scientist said recently that our current understanding of the universe is similar to that of a dog's understanding of quantum physics. So if the same is true of our understanding of God, then i suppose Christ was trying to explain as much as he thought we could take in at that time.

but Bloss you are an evangelical christian, yes?

thanks marina!