Women Bishops? What's yor view?

[combust22]

A vote in the Church of England today will decide whether to allow women to become bishops.

Should this happen?

I must admit that I find it that some dinosaurs don't like the idea of women clergy yet the Church of England's head is ... a woman!

The problem is that it is so convoluted. If it was just a matter for the CofE I'm sure that they would have sorted it years ago. The problem is relations with Anglicans worldwide, some of whom aren't very enlightened.

I have twice sent my CV to the Vatican when the position of Pope became vacant. I didn't even get an acknowledgement!! Not sure if using cardinal Keith O'Brian as a reference was a good idea. I think that must have scuppered my chances.

Yes.

Forty three out of the forty four dioceses voted for the proposal. The forty fourth couldn't get its act together in time. The people in the pews want women to be bishops. In November 2012 when it didn't go through my congregation couldn't understand what the fuss was about as they have had women priests for years. The main difference as far as they are concerned is that we sing soprano when we sing part of the service whereas the retired priest who covers for us when we are sick/on holiday has a lovely tenor voice.

There is a minority position in the Church of England that says that women cannot be priests because Jesus only appointed male apostles. This grouping at the more catholic end of the church are represented by a group called Forward in Faith and they may not agree on the principal of women bishops but they seem to be happy with the legislation on the table. There is another group that appose women in leadership as they say that the Bible says that only men can be leaders. This is at the very conservative end of the church and they are represented in the C of E by a group called Reform. This is the group that got their members onto General Synod to vote down the women in the episcopate legislation.

It will be very tight this afternoon as a minority view in the C of E has a disproportionate number of members in the house of laity.

Those of you that pray might send a few up this afternoon that the view of the majority in the C of E might be allowed to go through and that the church will be able to fully affirm the ministry of both men and women.

On a 'small' level I think of course there should be women bishops, because of course people shouldn't be excluded from jobs because of their gender.

But in a bigger-picture sense, I agree with combust.

I hope that the vote will be in favour of women bishops today, and I am optimistic that it will be.

I am a Christian and a feminist, and don't have a problem reconciling those things. There is sexism in the Church, sure, just as there is sexism in the workplace, for example, and it is the duty of all of us to challenge it where we find it. My personal experience of the Church has been overwhelmingly one of openness and tolerance, but this doesn't mean that there isn't work still to be done, and I hope that today's vote will be another step further forward.

To me, the debate on women bishops seems really anachronistic. I understand (though I emphatically don't agree with them) the theological arguments against admitting women to the priesthood. But since the Church now does admit women as priests, the arguments against admitting them as bishops look pretty flimsy.

senua - on the other hand, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal (Anglican) Church of the USA is a woman, so some bits of the Anglican Communion have got their act together on this!

OP my DH shares your view. I think we're stuck with the CofE in the long term sadly, and I'd rather they had a modicum of relevance rather than retreat into total religious nutbaggery which is arguably more dangerous!

Lots of other Anglican churches already have women bishops, or at least have passed legislation to allow them

The CofE finds it more complicated to vote for any kind of change, because it is large, because it is the 'mother church' of the whole Anglican communion, because it is a state church.

But even if the vote doesn't go through, it won't implode. Women will carry on being active within it, working for change, as they did for a very long time before the legislation for women priests got passed.

They are very well-practiced at running the place from behind the scenes, while dealing with the crappy legislation that affects a tiny proportion of them.

Hoping for the short term suffering of women who are religious, just because you yourself are an atheist is harsh and strange. I'm atheist and feminist but I want women who are religious to be happy fgs.

But the church's sexist structure affects millions of women, atheists and adherants alike.

So, surely hoping for it to change would be more compassionate to all the people who believe in God but have some problem with the sexist structure?

The sexist structure doesn't stop anyone from believing in God or wanting to be part of a religious group, it just annoys and disappoints them while they are there.

AMum I disagree. I used to nominally believe in god (never super keen, it has to be said) but stopped because of the offensive nature of the doctrine of most major religions when it comes to things like women's rights/place. If that's what god is, I'm having none of it.

Absolutely hope that it will go through today, and agree that it was un-believable that it didn't go through last time. Think that was quite damaging for the CofE. I'm a Quaker but was brought up broadly within the CofE and retain some affection for it, especially for many of our beautiful old churches, and some other aspects such as evening prayer. Am particularly fond of the Northumbrian community evening prayer and other daily prayers of theirs, as can be found on their website, and often referred to here by the lovely Tuo on the (christian) prayer thread.
Anyway a prayer of sorts that this will go through today - at last?

I think it's different if you are committed to a particular faith - the fact that the organisation you're part of isn't equal might make people move to another denomination or specific church, but most people don't decide not to go to church at all, or not to believe, just because human beings are flawed and religious structures reflect that.

Nominal belief is different - you question 'Is this something I want to be part of?' and decide, actually No it isn't. That can be because of sexism, or child abuse scandals, or the amount of money some people within churches seem to have rather than being charitable, or a whole heap of other things.

But if you believe in God, you want the church to improve and reflect what you think is important about that belief. And lots of people decide to do that from inside, accepting the fact that it isn't there yet.

Do hope very much it goes through today, I was really upset and frustrated in 2012 when it didn't, although actually the majority there did vote for women bishops - it was a lay minority that brought the vote against through (mainly Reform as Green said)

I'm Anglican (well, ish) and don't agree that it's utterly arcane and irrelevant. The vast majority of Anglicans I know, including bishops, are very much on the ball and work very hard for change both in the religious and social structures of the church and the community. I see very little sexism, although do accept that various parts of the communion are still somewhat misogynistic in their views and practises, unfortunately. I live in hope that they'll catch up...

I don't understand why people who allowed women to be priests are touchy about allowing them to be bishops, that makes no sense. I can kind of get those who voted against both, at least they are consistent. I understand - and thoroughly disagree with - the theological arguments and interpretations.

I would not like the CofE to implode as dh and I would be out of a job as it does such huge good in the community. There are some branches of it I would happily see die out, sure, but in the main they are plodding away in their local areas for the good of the people there.

I'm hoping to be celebrating along with my clergy women friends tonight.

I am not a member of the CofE don't understand the episcopal ins-and-outs of it all, but it seems logical that the time to introduce women bishops would have been shortly after ordaining women priests.

It seems hugely anachronistic that this has not already happened and been forgotten about, so that male and female church leaders can get on with the business of being a religious leader in today's ever changing 21st century society. Speak out about poverty, inequality, child abuse and hypocrisy; provide spiritual guidance and comfort to anyone who wishes to receive it - that is what I want the established church of the realm to do for me as a citizen - but don't sit around debating whether women are able to contribute anything to this process! Yes, General Synod Laity, I am looking at you!

The 'complication' of women bishops is how to deal with parishes who don't want them. With women priests, the legislation was there to allow them to choose not to have one. But a parish is within a diocese, and can't veto who gets the job as bishop, so they might get one even though they hate the idea.

I agree that's a terrible reason for doing or not doing something, but the CofE set a precedent when it allowed such a lot of opt-out clauses to get women priests 20 years ago, and some of the argument this time around is how to get the same power of veto again.

The legislation in the Scottish Episcopal Church (also Anglican) was way easier and didn't give people that kind of right to ignore the majority decision.

It does make you wonder how the CofE manages to avoid falling foul of the Equality Act doesn't it?

No parish should ever have had power of veto in the first place. Possibly individuals could have been given the option to receive communion from a man if they felt so strongly, but not a whole parish. Agree with AMUm in that this has led to further problems down the line with the bishop situation.

Exemptions for religion!

"But the church's sexist structure affects millions of women, atheists and adherants alike."

I'm quite confused about how women not being bishops affects millions of women not in the church, seeing as the primary roles of a bishop is the pastoral care of clergy and overseeing the running of a diocese. That smacks of hyperbole to me.

Another Christian and feminist here. I'm praying for a yes vote today. Was gutted at the no vote last time, so frustrating that it makes the church seem so irrelevant and up its own arse, and enraged at the way it distracts from the things of real importance that the church does and should do.

I agree with the OP.

I hope they did their heels in about women bishops, keep banging on about how unholy gay marriage is, and refuse to acknowledge/allow gay clergy.

For there lies the path to disestablishment.

And I, for one, will fucking rejoice.

Well said maid. Fingers crossed for a no vote.

That reminds me of all the ultra-leftists in the eighties who supported Thatcher on the grounds that it would hasten the revolution.

It was a really good idea then, too.

That reminds me of all the ultra-leftists in the eighties who supported Thatcher on the grounds that it would hasten the revolution

Ah, but that was a nose-spite-face situation, because they would have to live under that government.

I, however, have zero interaction with the Church of England, and they have no power over me. Hence, I can happily cackle from the sidelines...

I think that whatever the vote now, the church is a disgrace in its sexism,and its too late now for me to ever want to give them the time of day.

I don't care what they do, but I hope women finally decide to leave in theur droves should they vote no.