Why is the right wing of the CofE opposed to women bishops?
Or women priests for that matter.
Is it entirelly doctrinal? or are there other objections and what are the doctrinal objections? Is it just because Jesus' disciples were all supposed to have been men and that's taken as an example or is there some sort of explicit prohibition on women as priests?
jake-the-peg Tue 08/07/08 15:26
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
pretty much.
The fact is the CoE and wider Anglican communion chooses its bishops from its priesthood, and they must be interchangeable. Therefore women priests = women bishops.
Interesting that the Vatican has expressed its 'regret' at the decision when it has no reason to be interested - except for the crisis in the Catholic church re lack of priests and acute shortage of vocations. The Anglo-catholic branch of the CoE has already expressed a desire to move back to Catholicism if the women bishops issue proceeds, and the Catholic church has added that they will accept them as married priests.
Could be an interestinhg year for all concerned.
|
|
|
Many traditionalists object to women becoming bishops because they believe the Bible teaches that Church leaders must be men, such as Jesus and his apostles.
The objection - as such - is that those docieses who wish to not have women bishops should retain the right not to have them. Whereas the new proposals don't provide it - nor should they in my opinion. The votes was passed 263 for / 124 against.
The first woman bishop is unlikely to be appointed before 2014 anyway at which time most of the old retiring traditionalists who do object will have gone their heavenly way.
It will be interesting to see whether the Vatican will welcome married CofE clergy into the RC Church.
|
|
|
Question Author
Why do they believe this?
I don't believe Jesus had any African apostles but the church doesn't object to black priests.
|
|
|
Jesus commissioned 12 men as disciples and promoted them to apostles. St Paul said that the man "is the head of the woman" and much else besides about a woman knowing her place.
Scriptural interpretation is much more complex than a simple prescription for male hegemony. In the oft-mistranslated passage in Galatians - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, there is no male and female" – really meant that differences of gender are irrelevant in the Christian family for membership status.
Much like businesses, public schools and many of the ‘gentlemen clubs’ that survive today it comes down to tradition and generally an under current of misogyny or even homophobia. People don’t like change, especially old men in power. They seem to have forgotten the radical changes during reformation that made much of what they do today.
How do you know that none of the Apostles – or even Jesus himself – wasn’t African? But then if you stick to that belief, you have a choice to accept African vicars or not, I suspect you might, if you were of religious intent, also believe that Jesus’ real intention and purpose would have been inclusivity.
|
|
|
Question Author
I kind of feel that if one of the disciples had been black it would have been mentioned.
A bit like if one had been a gentile.
Funny you should mention Paul. I often get the feeling that a lot of Christianity has more to do with Paul than it does with Jesus
|
|
|
It's not called the Pauline church for nothing...
As for married CofE clergy - yes, the Catholic Church accepts them so long as they're married before 'conversion'. A complete cop-out frankly, and if it was allowed for Catholic Priests it would make their problems finding clergy a lot simpler to solve.
See here for an example:
http://bcc.rcav.org/07-09-24/index2.htm
|
|
|
jake hun, at the time of the gospels first edition, being 'black;' was not an issue just it was not an isue in the graeco-Roman culture the gospels arose in. This was a multiethnic eastern mediterranean civilisation whose unifying element was Rome. The anti-woman thing was Roman in spirit but arises in Christianity as Rome declines - now that is worth deconstructing.
|
|
|
I feel the current situation in the CofE is precarious. It seems as if there are varying degrees of alienation between the different groups within the Synod, let alone the Church at large. A majority of the house of Bishops generally favours admitting women to the episcopate, whereas the clergy more generally are less in favour and a majority of the laity (at least those represented in Synod) are generally opposed.
Given this, I think that it is unlikely that a Christianly-apt way of resolving this debate is likely. It is possible, but this would require a willingness to FORMALLY bind each group to a settlement that tolerated two incompatible views of episcopal ministry. Since this would represent a loss to both sides - the pro-Women-Bishop lobbyists and the anti-Women-Bishop lobbyists - each group is going to be pressing for as 'hardball' a settlement as possible.
The 'pro' group will use arguments regarding justice (these may or may not be valid) to try to force through a *non-voluntary* code of tolerance towards dissenters, so that 'pro' activists can go back to their parishes and dioceses and ignore the code completely - with the aim being to treat dissenters like their 'bi-a-tches'.
|
|
|
The same goes in reverse for the 'anti' group. They will use arguments from scripture and Church tradition (these may or may not be valid) to force through a compulsory code of practice and then use this to stymie appointments procedures - since then an applicant's attitude towards female ordination to the episcopate could not form part of the appointments for any ministerial position - even one which would otherwise be overseen by a woman bishop. The recipe would be to make effective female oversight impossible in certain cases.
The problem here is mistrust and the use of force. BOTH sides rightly suspect that the other side wants to co-opt the governance process of the CofE for their own position and use it against them. In the long term, I do not think peaceful coexistence is possible - and I also think that each lobby group has come to this conclusion. In my analysis, I think that this is the beginnings of a great divorce, with the aim being to get the house and all of the faithful.
|
|
|
Jake, all Christianity is more about Paul than Jesus - but we've been on this Road to Damascus before.
If any of the disciples had been black, I don't see why it would have been mentioned. I think it was pretty commonplace through trade, etc, to see black people in that area of the world in those days.
|
|
|
The Church of England is losing it.
Who cares if priests are white, black, gay, straight - if they are young and vibrant they might actually bring some young people into the fold.
In fact I know a number of priests, one of them is gay and the other a woman - they're great!
|
|
|
Hi Jake
Although the Cof E church is now seperate from the Roman Catholic church the seperation happened quite late in the history if christianity and their doctrine was virtually the same. The Cof E was formed for purely political reasons with the main point being the head of state was decreed as the head of the church and not the vatican. Henry got his divorces and usurped the 'power' to govern his subjects through their faith. During the course of it's evolution - and no doubt because the head is essentially a 'layman' the CofE has become more 'progressive' in it's policies. The ordination of females into the CofE is a very recent development and one which was also unpopular at the time. As Whickerman states, the church chooses it's Bishops from it's clergy and now that females are permitted to be clergy they would have to pass a resolution which SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED female clergy from being ordained as bishops. That would be much more contovertial!
Cynics would say that the Roman Catholic church maintains it's position of strength through it's policies. It's approach keeps women pregnant, ensures large families often with limited means who, in their struggle to survive, find solace in their faith and feel almost powerless to dictate their own destiny. Children grow up in that faith and, usually, adopt it as their own, ensuring further obedient disciples and - as always - financial contributions!
Black people are now permitted to be clergy - but there was a time when it would have been unnaccetable however the political emancipation of black races took place long before society would accept the equality of females!
Maybe the guys are worried that if women started running things they'd make a better job of it! (ha-ha!),
And by the way.. ALL the apostles were GENTILES as was Jesus!
|
|
|
firetracie ALL the apostles were GENTILES as was Jesus!
How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
|
|
|
Perhaps firettracie is referring to the Latin gentillis which meant tribe or clan, or generally 'non-Roman'.
The KJV Bible bought about the non-Jew meaning.
|
|
|
Question Author
Well as far as I'm aware Jesus' desciples were Jewish as were he. I'm also not aware of any black Jews I therefore think a black disciple would have been mentioned for that reason.
I didn't particularly pick the example of a gentile (non-jewish) priest for obvious reasons.
I think the idea still holds though - Taking Jesus as an example is precarious
Jesus did not marry - we have celibate priests
Jesus walked on water and did not swim - swimming is sinful
OK a silly example but you get the drift.
I still don't know if any practical objections to women bishops.
Or if there are any objections specifically about women as bishops as opposed to priests
If not why are these people talking about leaving the CofE when there are women bishops? whyt didn't thy go when women priests were ordained.
Finally Mani I'm intrigued that you say that most of the laity are against women bishops. The house of laity backed the move so where do you get this information from?
|
|
|
Jake, no one knows if Jesus was married. The bible doesn't say he was, and it doesn't say he wasn't, so he could have been. Just thought I'd mention that.
|
|
|
CofE dont have any rules if a religion can be created by a king.....
boo to all prods
|
|
|
Sammy Davis Jnr. Black Jew. Not a disciple ,I know but a Black Jew,never-the -less.
|
|
|
Jesus was a Jew, and the Jewish culture to which he belonged was strictly and officially male chauvinistic. Women were officially second-class citizens whose views on any subject amounted to nothing very much. You could call Mary and Martha of Bethany static disciples of Jesus but the idea of inviting women to join his wandering band would never have occurred to him, and no father, husband or brother would have permitted his daughter, wife or sister to do so.
It would have been both pointless and dangerous. If she had dared to preach or teach she would, at best, have been jeered and spat at; at worst she would have been stoned.
As others have said, he chose no black men, so goodbye to the Archbishop of York and all African and West indian priests; no Europeans, so banish the English vicar and all RC priests in Ireland and elsewhere. And what about the German pope?
The logical conclusion is that the only people who are qualified to be Anglican priests are Jewish Galileean fishermen, with the odd tax-collector thrown in.
All very silly.
|
|
Loans | Mobile Phones | Books | Mortgage Calculator | Gas Suppliers
