Church of England votes women bishops

[andrewlittle]

It seems like this news should be considered archaic in the Anglican tradition, but it isn't. Now the "traditionalists" are talking about a split over women bishops in the Church of England. It also appears that the vote to omit a clause for having male "super-bishops" or special dioceses for those who need a special provision for "living in dignity" (read:denying the image of God in women) occurred against the wishes of Rowan Williams. He wanted to appease - oh, excuse me - accomodate the traditionalists more robustly. I don't know about manhood - since I could give a rat's behind about that - but he seems to be loosing more and more of his humanity and spine.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7494517.stm

[BruceChris]

Hey Andy, cut him a little slack.

Edit: See my entry #9, below.

And it's only a matter of time until they have their own Katheryn Jefferts-Schori. The women will see to that. We should all learn that women too are made in the image of God:

http://edwinasandys.com/sculpture/scultureChrista.html

BC

[BruceChris]

In what was deemed an irregular ordination, 11 women priests were ordained in the Episcopal Church in the United States in 1974. This only happened in England in 1994, and not surprisingly, they have 20 years of catching up to do.

I predict that the Anglican Church in England will survive in some reasonable form, and the women will succeed in their new office.

Namaste', Bruce Chris

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I rejoiced hearing this news this morning. I can kind of see where ++Rowan is coming from, but I disagree with him. There can be no appeasing (quite the right word) the traditionalists. Justice is more important than trying to please all sides.

[Daniel]

That's what the whole thing is. At least, that's how the matter strikes me reading about it. Rowan is only going to piss off everyone. And what a fine legacy he will have left then. The man fairly stumbles forward.

I agree with Andy. Where's the man's bloody spine?

The Times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/wo...glican.html?hp

[Gregory_de_Bois]

In defence of ++Rowan, he had a lovely sermon about GLBT members in the Global Anglican Communion.

Catholic response: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/ch...ctions_of.html

++Rowan's Sermon:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/ar...re_woul_1.html

I just pray that the Archbishop does the right things. I love this church, and I understand his desire to keep it unified, but I also see where the line needs to be drawn and justice upheld. Pray for him.

[nmwolfboy]

Finally! What a welcome decision. Too bad that appointments of female bishops are unlikely before 2014.

The Bishop of Fulham, the Right Reverend John Broadhurst, who is a traditionalist, told Newsnight that the vote could lead to a split.

"I think a lot of us have made it quite clear if there isn't proper provision for us to live in dignity male privilege, inevitably we're driven out," he said.

"It's not a case of walking away."

Boy, that's familiar dissembling.

Whether it's debate over the role of women or lgbt people in the church, i can't get past the notion that there often seem to be blinders on the folks claiming to defend 'tradition'. Namely, their position seems to be predicated upon denying or at least downplaying the vital role that women (and lgbt people) have played and continue to play in the life and mission of churches.

Then they talk about defending 'tradition,' or their own 'dignity,' or what they perceive as the non-validity of women's callings, whether to the priesthood or the episcopate.

Neo-donatists, the lot of 'em.

"Accommodation," indeed. Andy, you used the correct word to start with.

For all the threats of church splits, does anyone know how that would play out with an officially established church like the C of E? Especially if it's true (as i've read) that most of the clergy threatening to split are actually retired.

As for ++Rowan, i'm still a bit inclined to charity. He's arguably no worse than his predecessor, Lord Carey. The upcoming Lambeth Conference may really test his mettle, and hopefully he will lead with more decisiveness than previously.

Pax,
scott

[BruceChris]

I would like to hear from some women in response to this thread. - BC

[BruceChris]

http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelat...?blog_id=19397

Edit: He does seem to say different things to different audiences.

Bruce Chris

[nmwolfboy]

Some reactions in the British press:

The Guardian
The Times
The Telegraph
The New Statesman

Pax et Bonum,
scott

[Vanessa White]

I am sure that a break/schism in the church would spiritually be a hurtful thing, but I guess I wonder in reality, what that would really LOOK like in terms of the church and its dynamics. If that is what is to be the doomsday reaction by those that are traditional in their views, what would really happen if the church split? To me, for women to have allowances to be Bishops is no different, in terms of represented ministry than to actually be ordained as a minister as a woman, in terms of the potential "damage" it could do according to those that disagree. It is still a person of the faith ministering the word of God, the word of Jesus Christ, in a loving and compassionate way.

Something that always strikes me as odd, and frustrates me in these debates, is the fact that, if a positive, appropriate change such as this can happen, and it will ultimately mean that we could grow our numbers in our churches, which I think are dwindling everywhere, why not do it? That is part of the approach that I am seeking with my own church on the issue of gays and lesbians as open members of our congregation: if we presented ourselves as more welcoming, therefore possibly increasing our numbers, isn't that what we want so that we can stay vital?? I think women in all positions of the church could send a message of hope to some that don't even attend church right now.......

Too idealistic????

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Vanessa White

Too idealistic????

Not too idealistic at all, at least not for me. While I like boys, I don't want to join a boy's club.

Nothing more boring than a party of all gay men, or all anything for that matter. Yes, I am putting the matter is secular terms, but what is true of a great party is, I think, true of great church. The more diversity, the better.

Letting people in rather than keeping them out make all the sense in the world.

Let there be female Bishops. And let there be Light!

[livewithsoulandfreedom]

hey,
the more the merrier isn't that what they say?
I never truly understood the traditionalists argument
for not having women as bishops but I believe that it
may have something to do with the fact that all of
Jesus' disciples were men. One thing they don't understand
is that the reason Jesus chose men wasn't because he saw
them personally as more valuable but that politically men
had the upper-hand and therefore a group of men could
do a lot more to spread the word of God than women at
the time. NOT because women were less worthy but because
men politically had more power... if that makes sense...
so you see, the traditionalists argument isn't truly sexist, its
just very VERY flawed.

[J.D.]

Originally Posted by livewithsoulandfreedom

I never truly understood the traditionalists argument
for not having women as bishops but I believe that it
may have something to do with the fact that all of
Jesus' disciples were men.

Ha! I'm not sure I've heard that line of logic before...and I'm quite the traditionalist/fundamentalist.

Clearly, anyone basing their reasoning off of Christ's choices for his apostles could draw all sorts of strange conclusions...you have to be a tax collector/fisherman/etc to be a bishop, or you have to be jewish, or whatever...that certainly makes no sense.

I think, in general, you'll find us discruptive fundamentalists appealing to specific New Testament scripture that speaks directly to issues of church leadership and their qualifications, such as in the books Timothy and Titus.

[Alecto]

In Catholic school, I was taught that priests must be men because they were representing Jesus, and Jesus was a man. WHen I asked why we don't require them to be ethnic Jews as well, the teacher repeated what he said and called on someone else.

[J.D.]

Originally Posted by Alecto

In Catholic school, I was taught that priests must be men because they were representing Jesus, and Jesus was a man. WHen I asked why we don't require them to be ethnic Jews as well, the teacher repeated what he said and called on someone else.

Clearly you and I both see this as ridiculous, so I'm preaching to the choir here, but I've never heard of that kind of reasoning whatsoever.

There is no scriptural basis for what he is saying. The only reference to a male directly illustrating Christ is the husband to his wife in the Pauline epistles, demonstrating Christ's relationship to the church.

It's dissapointing to see this particular position so poorly illustrated.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by J.D.

Clearly you and I both see this as ridiculous, so I'm preaching to the choir here, but I've never heard of that kind of reasoning whatsoever.

There is no scriptural basis for what he is saying. The only reference to a male directly illustrating Christ is the husband to his wife in the Pauline epistles, demonstrating Christ's relationship to the church.

It's dissapointing to see this particular position so poorly illustrated.

J.D.

So, where do you personally stand on the question of women being ordained as ministers, deacons, pastors, priests or bishops? Are you for it or against it? What role does Scripture play in your answer to this question? Can there be other considerations besides Scripture?

Would you belong to a church that ordained women? What church do you belong to?

Steven Webster

[J.D.]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

J.D.
So, where do you personally stand on the question of women being ordained as ministers, deacons, pastors, priests or bishops? Are you for it or against it? What role does Scripture play in your answer to this question? Can there be other considerations besides Scripture?

Would you belong to a church that ordained women? What church do you belong to?

Steven Webster

I doubt I'll be able to answer all of your questions in depth, so I'll keep things simplified.

As I said previously, I am a conservative Christian, likely fitting the "fundamentalist" terminology constantly in weboard dialogue. That being the case, I believe strongly that women, according to scripture, are created equal with men but for different roles. The example of church leadership is clearly illustrated, as previously stated, in Titus and Timothy.

We all have an authority. Mine is the Word of God. Plain and simple. If you want to dispute worldviews and the like...I'll be glad to discuss, as long as that is understood.

Do I "belong" to a church, Stephen? Not in the least. I chuckle on the inside at the though of belonging to a certain denomination, where members are seemingly traded amongst brother and sister churches. I believe in the Word, the God who wrote, and the Christ that fullfills it.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by J.D.

Do I "belong" to a church, Stephen? Not in the least. I chuckle on the inside at the though of belonging to a certain denomination, where members are seemingly traded amongst brother and sister churches. I believe in the Word, the God who wrote, and the Christ that fullfills it.

paging Groucho Marx: I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

so, since your chuckle prevented you from answering, do you attend worship services? if so, where? is this an independent church, or does it have a denominational affiliation?

[livewithsoulandfreedom]

J.D. could you please explain to me in more detail (as I am not familiar with it) what exactly it says in the books of timothy and titus that prohibits women from serving as priests. Or, what is interpreted to prohibit women from serving as priests... ??