Women in the Church of England Can Be Preists, Not Bishops

A writer said the Church of England just committed suicide.  That could well be.

Church organizations can quote scripture and talk of God’s intentions.  But when the result is out and out discrimination, they can kiss goodbye to being a force in society.  That’s what happened to the Church of England.

At a recent conference the Church voted by a narrow margin to exclude women from the post of Bishop.  They have been priests for at least a couple of decades.

We know, of course, similar policies have been in place in the Catholic and many denominations of Protestant churches since they began.  The view that women are equal to men in all aspects of management and governing of affairs have been gaining strength for hundreds of years.

The only reason men gained the upper hand was the invention of Christianity and its fellow travelors.  Before then, women ran things.

Thus, the return to at least an equal status is a return to what I call a natural reality.  Male domination is an aberration in the human experience.

Certain threads of Christianity have adapted to other things as times changed.  I grew up in a temporance branch.  When I eventually encountered Catholics, I was impressed at how tolerant, to the point of embracing, moderate use of alcohol.

Now, something else has come along.  At this point in time Catholics and the Church of England have encountered a turn in the road they are unable to navigate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/20/women-bishops-debate-suicide-note

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Women in the Church of England Can Be Preists, Not Bishops

  1. Stanta says:

    “Before this women ran things”

    How much history have you had? Ever heard of a Jewish rabbi before modern days being a woman? Woman imams? In ancient Rome they couldn’t inherit.

    Some times you should open your eyes to a little more then just Christianity.

    • Henry says:

      Jon: “Before this women ran things”

      He is brainwashed.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Stanta 1:46 “Ever heard of a Jewish rabbi…being a woman.”

      The Jews were included in my use of the term “fellow travelors”. Some devout Christian folks have the impression history began when the Bible was written. Women were seen as the more powerful gender earlier.

      • Henry says:

        Jon: “Women were seen as the more powerful gender earlier.”

        Do you have any extant documents describing this?

        • entech says:

          Lilith that is why she had to go. Starting again with A & E. A&E and extant documents you show yours and I’ll show you mine. :)

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 4:02 re: extant document describing this?

          I used a nice source way back in a blog, but I’m too lazy to file and catagorize the blogs. I looked for a few minutes but could not find it. It would not be a “extant document” but would fall under cultural anthropological work.

          Basically, before it was understood babies resulted from sex, women were seen as creating the baby through magical powers. It is well know this thing we call “linage” was tracked through mother’s names. Using father’s names as linage is a relatively recent practice. Women, holding the power to the future of the clan were seen as the more significant.

  2. .e says:

    My understanding is it was the lay members who swung the vote against the change. Kinda like what is happening in France with the marriage re-definition.

    • entech says:

      That doesn’t sound at all like the tea and cucumber sandwiches on the lawn church that I remember as a child.

      A couple of lines from the report:
      Traditionalists said things like: “I have always said that I would vote for women bishops if it met the theological objections of the traditionalists.” This sounds as if it makes sense – until you remember that the theological objection of the traditionalists is that there shouldn’t, or can’t be women bishops at all. Yet they spoke with apparent sincerity.
      This is the kind of double speak you hear all the time.

      Although the debate was notionally about the arrangements for women bishops – the principle having long since been conceded – the real objection came from conservative evangelicals who had not conceded the principle and never will.
      Conservative Evangelicals in my CofE. No wonder it is falling apart. Reading the report it would seem that even those most of the general membership want female Bishops those that manage to get themselves into a voting position dominated the vote.

      One of the commenters, a female priest said, ” … What happened today was not a rejection of women priests by the Church, nor a sign that the Church is irredeemably misogynistic and discriminatory. It was 6 people – just 6 – voting against something they didn’t want to happen (for whatever reason) which caused this. The Bishops were overwhelmingly in favour. The clergy were overwhelmingly in favour. Unfortunately it only took 6 people from the House of Laity to make that difference, and we now have to live with the consequences … “.

      The rule book they are supposed to use says in chapter one verses 26 and 27.
      And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

      I would read this being quite clear that in these lines “man” is used in a generic sense, as mankind or humanity, with “male and female created he them” as the defining clause for equality.

      But all is not lost, the Defender of the Faith is female and so is the Head of the Church.

    • entech says:

      The General Synod has 467 members. It comprises the Convocations of Canterbury and York, joined together in a House of Bishops and a House of Clergy, to which is added a House of Laity.
      The House of Laity consists of members from each diocese of the two Provinces elected by lay members of the deanery synods (or annual meetings of the chaplaincies in the case of the Diocese in Europe) or chosen by and from the lay members of religious communities, together with ex officio members.

      To suggest lay members voted against the motion is the same as saying the American people voted to invade Iraq. Just as government does not always do what the people that elected them want neither does the House of Laity necessarily represent the wishes of the laity.

      In my 2:33 am part of the quote from Genesis mentions “creepy things that creepeth” !

      • Henry says:

        endwreck: “is the same as saying the American people voted to invade Iraq.”

        At the time, the American people were behind invading Iraq. You are attributing later sentiment to a time before the war occurred. Even Hillary (D) wanted to go in and mop up on a bunch of crazies associated with a dark moment exacted upon us. She had watched her husband shoot a wad of cruise missiles at the crazies during his presidency. Political expedience changed the democrat’s position leading American public sentiment to follow. The crazies who are no dumbies, could sense the lack of resolve, and strengthened their efforts against us. And here we are.

        The demoncrats forgot the art of conducting war. Republicans should remember this next time we get attacked. We might as well just roll over next time.

        • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Henry 3:06 “next time we get attacked.”

          I didn’t know Iraq attacked us.

          • Henry says:

            Didn’t say they did.

            Next time, we should roll over.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            While Sadam didn’t have the WMD all sides anticipated, he did have poison gas, which is considered to be a part of WMD, and he did use it on the Kurds. He bragged that he had the others. (My understanding). I suspect just as much as posturing to their then enemy, the Iranians,- – and us. We must remember that he didn’t allow full inspection. He created the climate of suspicion. It worked for a while, and he paid for it. Today, we all should be thankfull that he didn’t, or couldn’t.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Wanna 5:16 “..he did have poison gas, which is considered to be a part of WMD, and he did use it on the Kurds.”

            We have a family member who enlisted just at the time Iraq’s poisoness gas was all the talk. He was immediately placed in a unit preparing for poisoness gas attacks. I don’t consider myself an expert in the topic, but can relate what I recall he said after a few months in this training.

            The gas was effective at killing many Kurds because is caught them be surprise. If the other side anticipates use of this gas, it is not effective at all. It requires ideal atmoshpheric conditions and perfect winds. The winds have to be in the right direction and not too strong nor too weak. Both sides have access to all that information. The defense will know exactly where the dispensor will try to dump the gas and when so it can attack the vehicles dumping it. As a defense, it has gas masks.

            So, our family member said there were these resources, like his training, devoted to defending against gas but higher command, closer to the political people. But, on the ground there was not a lot of enthusiasm because they could see it would not be used.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            About the same story my uncle told me from WW1. If the wind shifted, it could come back at you. If memory serves, the Iraquis dropped it from the air into the best position, and let it work . The Kurds were ill prepared to cope.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “But, on the ground there was not a lot of enthusiasm because they could see it would not be used.”

            The lack of enthusiasm is being in MOPP 2 in hot weather. It sucks. It was known that Sodom was crazy enough to use chemical weapons. It was not known beforehand chemical weapons would not be used.

      • entech says:

        Oh my, it was just supposed to be a simple analogy, didn’t mean to poke salted needles into festering wounds to mix a metaphor or two. The actual thing that your government (or mine, or anyone else’s) is really irrelevant to the point, the point was that the elected don’t always have the same agenda as those that elected them, the real agenda is not always apparent at election time. You will notice that I did not make any suggestion about who actually did what or who thought what, agreed with fought against or anything like that – know nothing of American politics and don’t comment except on the rare occasion I can see some relevance (on Iraq I could, but won’t, state an opinion as much of the Australian population was against our leader of the time blindly following your leader of the time, irrelevant to the point).

        Henry, if I may say something. You would make a more effective case if you refrained from such expressions as Obamba, demoncrat and similar – reduces your mental age to about 10. But I do like terms of affection, pet nicknames, like endwreck for entech, so cute.

        The main point I wanted to make was that a few “conservative evangelicals” managed to overcome a majority view to impose their own opinion. I do not know what the American definition would be, in England it would probably be something like “lunatic fringe imposes its view”, or perhaps a further reference to “creepy things that creepeth”. It is rather sad that the Church of England having developed into a rather benign denomination after it’s awful start with Henry VIII and the mutually destructive battles for power with the Church of Rome, rather sad that it should be losing the battle to people that want to take it back centuries. Just as the monarchy has been tamed and sits on the sidelines so the church of England should be. A tradition not to be taken too seriously but having a vaguely stabilising effect.

        • Henry says:

          “A tradition not to be taken too seriously but having a vaguely stabilising effect.”

          Lukewarm and mouth spewing.

        • Henry says:

          endwreck: “it was just supposed to be a simple analogy”

          It had a false basis. I can certainly take your corresponding point to be false too. I don’t however believe you would want that.

        • Henry says:

          endwreck:“You would make a more effective case”

          It would make n0 difference for you. You are already proven to be “bound” along with your compadres.

        • entech says:

          Wow, three little snippets in rapid succession. Did I hit a nerve or something.
          Do you actually know anything about “bound”, another of your little bits and pieces collected to serve instead of thought, haven’t seen “your so black and white” for a while, but I am sure we will before long, you are such a conservationist (or is that conservative), always recycling your shinola.
          “Bondage of the Mind” is a book you might like, counter some of the nonsense in “Bondage of the Will”

  3. Wanna B Sure says:

    Happy and contented Thanksgiving day to all.

  4. Ed says:

    Happy Thanksgiving? Jon ….I am counting on you and your fellow FT’s to rally and protest for the removal of this worthless holiday! Thanksgiving was orirginally a celebration of the Pilgrims to give thanks for a bountiful harvest. It later was recognized by most religions and our government as a celebration of thanks to a god for providing bountiful crops. Well ….this has to be the second most outlandish holiday right behind Christmas when naive folks across the world celebrate the birth of a common child named Jesus Christ? I know more wiser folks like yourself don’t celebrate that holiday and are hard at work Christmas Day. I assumed you are working hard today also….rather than joining in a “Happy” celebration of another concocted religious holiday? Don’t be taking a dip into the hypocrite pool John….

    Hey……while you’re at work, I’m watching football, eating a lot, and giving thanks for all of the blessings our family has received this past year. And…I’m going to say a prayer for you as well.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Ed 3:45 “was originally a celebration of the Pilgrims to give thanks for a bountifyu harvest.”

      My understanding is it came from Europe. We can assume it came from people and religions preceding contmeporary ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>