Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Should we have women bishops in the Church of England?

142 replies

uwila · 15/02/2006 09:09

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.

OP posts:
scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:43

The body of Christ does not value one part of the body over any other (except for the head - Christ). We all have our part to play and diversity of roles is important in order to be complete.

ruty · 16/02/2006 11:45

i think you're evading the question bloss.

ruty · 16/02/2006 11:46

all those terrible things happening in the world don't exactly stop certain christians spending more time fighting gay priests, now does it?

bloss · 16/02/2006 11:47

Message withdrawn

bloss · 16/02/2006 11:47

Message withdrawn

ruty · 16/02/2006 11:51

my point is people are selective about what they think is important, regardless of terrible things happening in the world. I believe the lack of equality in the church is just symptomatic of a wider biogtry and insularity within it.

ruty · 16/02/2006 11:53

my point is people are selective about what they think is important, regardless of terrible things happening in the world. I believe the lack of equality in the church is just symptomatic of a wider biogtry and insularity within it.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:54

I think you are being unfair to Bloss, Ruty .

I too am undecided on this issue, and that it because it is not important to me. It's not an issue for my church. Although we are in interregnum at the moment, the PCC voted to consider female candidates for vicar but with our patron actively opposed to women's ordination, it was a moot point for us.

If I did have to decide one way or another, I would have to trawl through and make sense of lots of scripture, and I'd have to consider this in light of reason (knowing that we have a loving and merciful God). I can see for and against for both positions, and I would have to say that it is close to a toss up as to which is the right one.

As far as I am concerned, it is women who run the church, and it doesn't bother me that it should be only men who should preside over the The Lord's Supper. There is plenty of work to go around.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:54

I think you are being unfair to Bloss, Ruty .

I too am undecided on this issue, and that it because it is not important to me. It's not an issue for my church. Although we are in interregnum at the moment, the PCC voted to consider female candidates for vicar but with our patron actively opposed to women's ordination, it was a moot point for us.

If I did have to decide one way or another, I would have to trawl through and make sense of lots of scripture, and I'd have to consider this in light of reason (knowing that we have a loving and merciful God). I can see for and against for both positions, and I would have to say that it is close to a toss up as to which is the right one.

As far as I am concerned, it is women who run the church, and it doesn't bother me that it should be only men who should preside over the The Lord's Supper. There is plenty of work to go around.

ruty · 16/02/2006 11:54

my point is people are selective about what they think is important, regardless of terrible things happening in the world. I believe the lack of equality in the church is just symptomatic of a wider biogtry and insularity within it.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:55

I think you are being unfair to Bloss, Ruty .

I too am undecided on this issue, and that it because it is not important to me. It's not an issue for my church. Although we are in interregnum at the moment, the PCC voted to consider female candidates for vicar but with our patron actively opposed to women's ordination, it was a moot point for us.

If I did have to decide one way or another, I would have to trawl through and make sense of lots of scripture, and I'd have to consider this in light of reason (knowing that we have a loving and merciful God). I can see for and against for both positions, and I would have to say that it is close to a toss up as to which is the right one.

As far as I am concerned, it is women who run the church, and it doesn't bother me that it should be only men who should preside over the The Lord's Supper. There is plenty of work to go around.

ruty · 16/02/2006 11:55

my point is people are selective about what they think is important, regardless of terrible things happening in the world. I believe the lack of equality in the church is just symptomatic of a wider biogtry and insularity within it.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:55

I think you are being unfair to Bloss, Ruty .

I too am undecided on this issue, and that it because it is not important to me. It's not an issue for my church. Although we are in interregnum at the moment, the PCC voted to consider female candidates for vicar but with our patron actively opposed to women's ordination, it was a moot point for us.

If I did have to decide one way or another, I would have to trawl through and make sense of lots of scripture, and I'd have to consider this in light of reason (knowing that we have a loving and merciful God). I can see for and against for both positions, and I would have to say that it is close to a toss up as to which is the right one.

As far as I am concerned, it is women who run the church, and it doesn't bother me that it should be only men who should preside over the The Lord's Supper. There is plenty of work to go around.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:55

I think you are being unfair to Bloss, Ruty .

I too am undecided on this issue, and that it because it is not important to me. It's not an issue for my church. Although we are in interregnum at the moment, the PCC voted to consider female candidates for vicar but with our patron actively opposed to women's ordination, it was a moot point for us.

If I did have to decide one way or another, I would have to trawl through and make sense of lots of scripture, and I'd have to consider this in light of reason (knowing that we have a loving and merciful God). I can see for and against for both positions, and I would have to say that it is close to a toss up as to which is the right one.

As far as I am concerned, it is women who run the church, and it doesn't bother me that it should be only men who should preside over the The Lord's Supper. There is plenty of work to go around.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:56

Oops!

bloss · 16/02/2006 11:57

Message withdrawn

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 11:58

Of course we all have different things we consider important. What is wrong with that?

ruty · 16/02/2006 11:59

gosh what happened there! I am baffled as to why i am being unfair to bloss, do explain. But there again I find it baffling how women would have to deliberate on the issue, I suppose you don't agree that God is both male and female? Bloss does think people of other religions are 'sons of hell' , though she doesn't take the bible literally, so I guess this argument is too confusing for me, I'll bow out now.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 12:02

You are badgering for an answer, and when she gives one you disapprove.

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 12:04

But you have said that it is OK for ++Ramsay to be wishy washy and agnostic. Why do you have higher standards for a lay person?

ruty · 16/02/2006 12:04

sorry if i did that, i didn't think i did, i was just saying i think the same argument would stand [all the terrible things in the world] for not making gay people's lives a misery - NOT directed at Bloss in particular. anyway, I always get heated on these threads, forgive me, have to take ds out, poor boy!

ruty · 16/02/2006 12:05

scienceteacher sorry but i said being agnostic was not wishy- wasy - please read!

bloss · 16/02/2006 19:30

Message withdrawn

scienceteacher · 16/02/2006 19:41

Thanks for explaining the "sons of hell" thing, Bloss. I was confused when it cropped up in this thread.

PeachyClair · 16/02/2006 19:53

We did exactly this today in Uni! I will repeat what my Professor said....

In the early Church the boy was considered to be a healthy child, a girl was considered to have been a baby who had become deformed in utero. There are a few specific sources for this: firstly the writing of Paul, although there is some suggestion that the passages in question were actually added later. More specifically, the Holy Roman Emperors Jerome, Aquinas and Augustine had severe issues with females, believing them to be incarnate of sin (hence the concept of origical sin which materialised at this point) and temptresses to men. Women should be married off as soon as they hit puberty, as they would then become like bears and be impossible to tame. Men (Greek- this is the Aristotle bit) on the other hand were perfect, rational , calm and indeed the opposite to women. A man was born close to God but a woman could only attain this through marriage.
The only exceptions were virgin nuns, even they were doubted by some.

The primary trait in Greek philosophy of this time was rationality: sex = orgasm (they haven't had some of the bf's I have [wink) = loss of rationality. But this wasn't the fault of the man: the womaen were temptresses. Further, when the men went to emulate Jesus in self denial it wasn't wine or food they dreamed of, it was women. Therefore the women were witchy temptresses.

This was further developed with Augustine who wrote the idea of original sin, the method of transmission of which was sex, therefore sex = sin. Augustine struggled with chastity (ie couldn't keep it in his pants) so women must be at fault for sex.

Presumably if sex = origianl sin then Chrsitians should advocate cloning but anyway.

HOWEVER- feminism also was born from chrsitianity, as the feminism movement grew in part from the Chrsitian anti slave movement.

According to lecturer: Bible shows accounts of Jesus supportimg the spiritual development of females, the rots for the no-females thing came maninly as a result of male issues (Lecturer male btw!) with their sexuality, and even the early sources are dubious on St paul.

No opinions- haven't read further- just rough transcript of notes.