News9 mins ago
Women bishops
21 Answers
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
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.
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.
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!
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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
Latest Posts
Caught, Those Who Allegedly Cut Down The...
News13 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
News17 mins ago
Law20 mins ago
Crosswords23 mins ago
