What's the issue with women bishops?

[loler]

This is a very grown up question for me - normally found on the pg craving type threads, but everytime I hear the news about people leaving the CoE I've been wondering.

Is it middle aged men getting their knickers in a twist over having women bishops al la vicar of dibley first episode or does it say in the bible somewhere that women can only attend church, not run them?

Why aren't the women in the church making more of a stink over it?

And forgive me as I'm a complete heathen but those CoE Bishops that are converting to Catholics - is this not a completely different set of values - how can they live with them just for the sake of a bit of gender equality?

Sorry if these all sound like daft questions but the news seems to be assuming a level of relgious understanding that I don't have (my main source of knowledge being the vicar of dibley and father ted!)

What SGM said.

There are places in the Bible where it does say things like "Man is the head of woman, as Christ is head of the church", and other quotes saying that women shouldn't talk in church (which probably should be translated more as "gossip" than speak in general). Some Christians take that to mean a woman should never be the leader of the church, in a position like a priest or bishop where she has authority over men.

Others take the view that because Christ only had male apostles, and the bishops are in a direct line from them (theoretically at least) they have to be male. And/or that the CofE doesn't have the authority to have women bishops until/unless the RC church decides its ok, since Anglicans split off from the RC.

And the women in church are very often making a stink over it, but not all of them, which makes it tricky!

Oh, and the cofE bishops who are going over to the RC are ones who are already so catholic that Rome will seem quite "low church" to them anyway! The CofE is very broad, and the most "catholic" edge of it is very much like traditional Roman Catholic beliefs and ways of doing things, so its not that big a jump for them.

Sounds like the CoE would be better off without them then.

As a teenager I can clearly remember losing respect for religions where everyone is not viewed as equal. In the last 20 years I've not had this opinion changed.

Thanks for the information - will be able to understand what I'm hearing now.

Hi loler - I know it is a bit of a mystery. Actually the CofE have offered (IMO icky) compromises but many have rejected them. One big problem is that not only will some Anglicans not accept being in the diocese of a woman bishop, they will not accept the dominion of any cleric ordained by a female bishop either. With women making up half of those training to be priests, this is going to cause a problem in the future. Basically they want every male priest to have a pedigree that indicates that at no point has he been ordained or promoted by a woman, because that would invalidate him in their eyes.

It is foul.

IIRC the main biblical text quoted is from St Paul in one of his letters, where he says that women should not teach or have authority over men.

That is completely bizarre - if they chose to live under the letter of the bible, I'm sure there must be lots of other things that they should/shouldn't do.

Isn't the Queen head of the CoE? So isn't everyone under the authority of a women.

Don't remind them of that, they'll probably die :o

Yes there are lots of things aren't there. Wearing mixed fibres for instance. IIRC if a man has a wet dream he has to go and sleep outside the house and then be ritually cleansed by a priest. Should make things more exciting (or breathable in the case of fabrics).

The thing about religion is, there's no rule that says it has to be logical or consistent.

I heard one of the 'traditionalists' complaining that the pro-women lot were 'making it up as they went along' - well what's new? The RCs are making up a rule to allow married CofE vicars in.

"Why aren't the women in the church making more of a stink over it?"

I sometimes think this - what would happen to the Anglican church (or the RC one for that matter) if women just refused to take part any more because the sexism is against their consciences. Then I get momentarily misty eyed, imagining solidarity, a feminist revolution, being able to take part in sincere worship, coming home (swelling movie music, sob sob). then I get a bit annoyed that this will never happen and that while almost no women agree with this nonsense, so few of them stand up to it, and those who are skilled at fudging their consciences get to go to church while the rest of us stand sulkily around in the cold. then I remember that this is just what the rest of life is like. the question is: Why aren't the women making more of a stink?

From what I've heard, quite a lot of women in the CofE are anti women vicars/bishops.

I think it is partly to do with a deeply ingrained fear of menstruation and a woman handling the sacrament when 'unclean'.

No evidence to prove this, just a hunch.

There are plenty of women in the church who are not unhappy about the situation - maybe because they just don't question it, or they are so used to it that it seems wrong to change, or they buy the "equal but different" line, and are fine with women de facto running huge parts of the church without actually being priests/bishops because that is equally important.

Also, women who have a major issue with it are fairly likely to have either left the church, to go to another denomination or just no longer going anywhere, or else to have not started to go to that church in the first place.

There are denominations where this isn't an issue - I'm Scottish Episcopal and we have women priests and bishops, and no "weasel words" to let parishes say they are less acceptable than men. But that doesn't guarantee there aren't men in it who think that way still.

As a basic starting point - requirements set out in the Old Testament are no longer required. Things like sacrifices, ritual cleanliness, good and bad foods etc are all obsolete. Because 1. Christ is the "full and final sacrifice", 2. Paul (or maybe Peter) saw a vision of clean and unclean animals and God told him that its not what you put into your mouth that makes you unclean, but what comes out of it.

So, no mainstream Christian denomination would have problems with shellfish, cheeseburgers, or poly-cotton shirts.

But things in the New Testament - the teachings of Christ and of his immediate followers and the church in the early days - are still considered important/required/recommended depending on your point of view.

So if St Paul said it, its important. If Christ said it, it's very important.

It was Peter : 'up Peter, kill and eat'

Wonder how the church would have ended up if it really had been built on Peter rather than Paul?

'Others take the view that because Christ only had male apostles'

That's the version that has been passed down the ages by Peter at al. There are gospels by women that didn't make it into the New Testament, and there is no proof that Mary of Magdala wasn't an apostle. It makes no sense that she wasn't.