A woman archbishop of Canterbury....a leap forward for gender equality?

[mids2019]

I think having a woman archbishop is fantastic but I do wonder if this post was always going to be filled by a woman and we were simply waiting for the last archbishop to resign/retire. The Anglican church is diminishing in the UK so I do wonder if this is maybe a large change in a conservative institution to try and save off falling interest in relgion.

The other major Abrahamic faiths Islam, Judaism as well as Catholicism all have patriarchal structures and yet maybe perversely are in my opinion more robust currently.

In also think that there are conservative elements within the Anglican church that will feel troubled by this decision and I wonder if this will become divisive?

As a priest who is female I can say that this post was not a done deal for a woman. My fellow clerics are delighted but aware that this is going to be a very tough job. We are already deeply divided. The conservative wings of the CofE are going to think this through very carefully. At the moment they do not advertise on their websites that they are conservative on women in leadership. Now they have to be honest and upfront about what distresses them about a woman as Archbishop. I’m not sure that patriarchy is missional however much conservatives want to read their Bibles that way.

I met Sarah Mullally several times when she was Bishop of London. I was involved in a lot of stuff in The City at the time, so frequently came across her.

I wish her a lot of luck in her new role. I’d think she was the best person for the job.

Do you think they will need to be honest and upfront as you say. They’ve had to accept female bishops - may they just keep their heads down?

The Bishop of London being appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury when the other main candidate the Archbishop of York has had allegations of inaction against him. No surprise at all.

I don't think Sarah Mullally has been appointed because she is a woman.

The Anglican church is diminishing in the UK so I do wonder if this is maybe a large change in a conservative institution to try and save off falling interest in relgion.

it is diminishing because it is trying to ape secular culture. It is the evangelical/conservative churches that are growing; the ones that are saying ‘Christianity is, and always has been, counter-cultural. Our beliefs are not swayed by secular ideologies’.

Is she the type of woman who knows what a woman is? Or is it all very complicated?

Or do what several local churches have done - leave the Church of England and buy up one of the churches left deserted by the Church of England (possibly the one they are currently in) for their growing now non-denominational congregation?

If there hadn't been a female leader of any large institution in the modern age there would be outrage. However isn't Christianity by it's very nature patriarchal? God is a man,Jesus a man, the apostles men.....of course it's sexist but if your ancient texts upon which faith is based are inherently male based then can you fundamentally change this?

As said before Islam, Judaism and Catholicism are patriarchal but still have huge followings world wide. Why at a time when the Anglican church is under pressure follower number wise should it make what could be perceived as radical move?

Many may misinterpret this as the church going 'woke' to appease feminism and disregarding centuries of tradition to reflect modern society?

As a Buddhist priestess this really interests me as East Asian culture favours men and the Buddha, Gautama, was a male.
For a long time and still in many sects the idea remains you have to be reborn as a male to become a Buddha. But in China and then Japan Buddhist clerics developed interpretations of universal buddhahood in this life and body (even animals and plants) and worshipped cosmic buddhas and bodhisattvas like Guanyin, turned into a female. So now they're not tethered to an historic datepoint like the big Western 3.
I guess it's monotheism that's the issue or perhaps theologians being hidebound. I don't know not being overly familiar.

It is not about being woke or ‘tradition’; Christianity is not a tradition, it is a belief. The fear is the church moving away from core Christian beliefs in order to fit in with society. It is irrelevant what the modern age thinks if it goes against the basic tenets of the faith.

In terms of lacking a female leader - how much outrage is there over this for the Labour Party? Probably not as much as if a female leader was chosen purely for being female (though they would still probably choose a man).

God is not 'a man' nor male. It's a common misunderstanding, but Christian theology understands God to contain all things - male and female are human, not divine.
This is not always reflected in Christian churches. (!)

Was Jesus a man. Maybe not as they are all part of a trinity. Jesus was male so wasnt his father who he was the physical manifestation of?

I hope so

CofE tries too hard to please everyone and in reality pleases nobody, in my opinion. Especially when it comes to things like gay marriage and all the wishy washy “oh we won’t do it but we don’t think it’s bad, here you can have a special blessing instead” nonsense

The type of church you mention may be growing in some places, but do the congregation actually know what their church really believes in - being anti-woman in particular? These churches hide the fact.

I think she was a picked because she’s a strong leader, and as a former nurse will be hopefully be better at safeguarding than most of the senior bishops. Rather than because she’s a woman. How on earth Stephen Cottrell is still in post, I have no idea. He pushed for a bishop to be appointed, despite having failed the safeguarding interview.

They know what a woman is at least. How do you see them as anti-woman?

If you cannot marry same sex couples because you think marriage is reserved for a man and a woman and sex is a gift that should only takes place within marriage, so to marry them is to lead them into sin and away from God, then how can you say the relationship should be blessed? Either it is sinful and cannot be blessed, or it fine and they can marry. It is this fence-sitting that pleases no one.

As she is a biological women it’s a step forward for sex equality
Its not a gender issue

It’s Great news

The thing with organised ancient religion is don't you have to abide by the ancient text or else the religion loses cohesion and becomes a smorgasbord of different pronouncements where you pick and choose which to follow? Well there 10 commandments but we'll just pick the ones we feel like to follow etc....does this not turn Christianity into a type of spirituality where dogma and tradition are put to one side. On the one hand sexuality equality is an absolute positive in modern society and we are a state where indeed it is an expectation but does this hold true for religions where standing by ancient text is at the core of belief?

but does this hold true for religions where standing by ancient text is at the core of belief?
But all texts are subject to interpretation by theologians, so you're not really following the bare text. I won't even go into the Trinity.
Can't you follow the Sermon on the Mount, believe Jesus is God and not think a priest has to be a man because that's how it was in 1st Century Judea culturally?

But 1st century Judea culture was in strong part due to Judaism from which Christianity arises. Christianity is a new covenant but one that builds on what went before.

True, I'm Jewish and rabbis have always interpreted the Old Testament, no one takes it literally.
Additionally the ancient Jews were polygamous, circumcised and ate kosher, so what Christians take from Judaism is selective due to time and disposition.

Those issues are addressed in the New Testament. So not due to Christians being selective. Though different Christian denominations do prioritise different things - as do Jewish denominations.

Of you continue with the above logic do you simply get down to a loving God where there is promise of redemption from sin and an after life?.in other words you have a very core Christianity and you interpret the rest as you see fit? I can see why this is done but don't religions work by having shared dogma and tradition so that there are distinct lines between say Catholicism and Protestantism? It may seem.perverse in say but is there an argument that those religions that hold onto core dogma including patriarchy are the more robust with conservatism being attractive in an ever changing world?

we have had Kings and Queens for centuries in this country and the Archbishop of Canterbury since 500 AD who has always been male. Again why the need to change the sex of the pinnacle position in the C of E when all the other major religions are steadfastly holding onto male.leadership?