Ship of Fools: One All as Women Bishops get the OK

Thread: One All as Women Bishops get the OK Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028548

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

Jeffrey John did not get his Bishops mitre, but women do. And with a compromise that means those who can not accept the authority of a woman primate must go to her, cap in hand, to ask her to allow a male Bishop from another diocese preside in their Churches.
I wonder if the JJ thing was a set up, to allow the trads to feel they had won on something?
All very interesting!

[ 12. July 2010, 22:48: Message edited by: The Weeder ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

This OP is getting lonely.

I say, Way cool! [Cool]

No doubt the CoE will be living in interesting times for a while, but still, Way cool!

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

Much as I am not a Christian, I think women bishops are an awesome idea.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

[Yipee]

Great news!

[Votive]

for the future and the first women bishops.

What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

And I trust that those who don't care for the oversight of a male bishop can Ask Nicely and be allowed to import a female...

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
And I trust that those who don't care for the oversight of a male bishop can Ask Nicely and be allowed to import a female...

Posted by Deckhand (# 15545) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

No doubt the CoE will be living in interesting times for a while

Oh yes..

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
for the future and the first women bishops.

First women bishops in the CofE but not first ever.

But [Votive]

indeed.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Yes, it's a surprisingly decisive move. Clearly, some will be v. unhappy. This sort of thing is a dead horse for a reason, and the CofE not going for a fudge may well (eventually) lead to clearer air.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

As someone said one Goon Show: 'The plot thins'.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Pro-OOW outsider's view: Good, though some more concrete provision for traddies wouldn't have done any harm....the more inflexible the pro-OOW movement in one tradition, the harder it will be to make progress in another. If those involved in the selection of bishops have any sense they'll make sure that the first women bishops are fairly traditionally evangelical or Anglo-Catholic. I'm not sure they will have sense though.

[ 13. July 2010, 06:56: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Weeder:
Jeffrey John did not get his Bishops mitre, but women do. And with a compromise that means those who can not accept the authority of a woman primate must go to her, cap in hand, to ask her to allow a male Bishop from another diocese preside in their Churches.
I wonder if the JJ thing was a set up, to allow the trads to feel they had won on something?
All very interesting!

I don't think it is as simple as 'one-all'. There will be some anglo-catholics who will be happy for a Jeffrey John, but not women bishops, some evos who will be happy for women bishops but not a gay bishop, some not happy with either, some trying to work it all out and some happy with both. To create a narrative of modernisers against traditionalists is not helpful.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

We had our first female bishop about two years ago.

I was jammed up the back of the packed Cathedral but it was an amazing experience. [Yipee]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc!

...and monarchs!

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?

[ 13. July 2010, 08:11: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?

That assumes that the holy spirit is not at work in life outside the church. Maybe she's been trying desperately to get the church to look at the contribution women could make as bishops, and indeed as priests, but it's taken a very long time to get this part of it to listen - ?!

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the resy of society?

I think it's a fair comment. It's not an argument in itself - obviously, the Church has its own reasons for doing things that are different from other segments of society, but there is also some overlap. Particularly in historically Christian societies that resisted accepting women's suffrage, or women in the workplace, etc., with biblical arguments alongside prejudices and other arguments.

It's also just a comment, not an argument (as I read it). And depending on how you understand the issues re: OOW, YMwillV.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

And why the hell shouldn't the Church fall into line with the expectations and mores of (our contemporary) society?

As a female medico, I well recall all the guff as recently as 40 years ago as to the unsuitability of women in medicine (apart from tending to wimmin) and men as nurses.

Not to mention how long it took for the divines of the C of E to give the OK to the use of chloroform in childbirth , only after the Supreme Governor herself had a whiff with baby #8. Someone finally suggested that if the Almighty could sedate Adam while the rib was taken to create Eve, then it was OK to apply the knock-out drops to allay the (God-given) agony of childbirth.

m

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?

As WW said - I was commenting, not arguing [Smile]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Oooop - not WW, churchgeek - same avatar!

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
for the future and the first women bishops.

What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

As usual, Britain is behind the times.

New Zealand had its first woman bishop twenty years ago.

New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893, 25 years before Britain got around to it.

On the other hand, the UK had a woman MP (Lady Astor) in 1919, 14 years before NZ (Elizabeth Reid McCombs).

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

My only problem with the way the whole discussion has been conducted and reported on is that it has all centred around very un-Christian concepts of "leadership". The bishop is seen to be the "boss" of his/her diocese, and ordination to the episcopate as "promotion".

Contrary to this thinking, from the time of Gregory the Great the bishop has been seen as the "servant of the servants of God". Though as deacons and priests are also in this hierarchy of servitude, the bishop should really be called the "servant of the servants of the servants of the servants of God". In which case, we should be rejoicing that women's ministry in the CofE will, in the near future, hit an all-time low!

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

IMO, those against having women bishops (and some also against lower ordained women) are having it from their prejudice deep within them, not always aware of that, and also having been taught spiritually wrongly - again from away back in their lives, and so they are using what they say as "correct Christianity"/"correct biblicalism" and don't realise they are prejudiced against women's status.

In our CofE church, years ago, some people were "prejudiced" against women chalice servers when that happened, and agaist women vicars/curates, but the church has developed and those people are no longer prejudiced and accept and realise they can be blessed and learn from women as well as from men.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
We had our first female bishop about two years ago.

I was jammed up the back of the packed Cathedral but it was an amazing experience.

Thanks for re-posting those photos, Evensong. They brought tears to my eyes yet again.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Roll on the first woman ABC.

[Yipee]

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
We had our first female bishop about two years ago.

What an interesting pointy metal crosier. I've never seen a non-wooden one before...

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
IMO, those against having women bishops (and some also against lower ordained women) are having it from their prejudice deep within them, not always aware of that, and also having been taught spiritually wrongly - again from away back in their lives, and so they are using what they say as "correct Christianity"/"correct biblicalism" and don't realise they are prejudiced against women's status.

Erm. Let me try and stay within the realms of Purgatory.

daisymay, would you like to rephrase that in any way?

Thurible

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Sorry to be so lax in my hosting duties. Of course, this doesn't belong here. Off to DH.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?

It's a very fair question to ask, of course. But it depends which society, secular or otherwise, you're referring to. When the Church didn't permit women to be priests back in the, let's say, 17th, 18th and 19th century, they were perfectly in line with both the religious and civic mores of contemporary society. Positively colluding with it.

No gripes about falling in line with society then, I suppose?

As everyone, including most women and even reformers, 'knew', women weren't up to the rigors physical or mental of a masculine education; were to be under the control legally and morally of their husbands, fathers or brothers, and most certainly would never have entertained the idea of being a doctor, lawyer, politician etc.

Again, I don't recall or read anywhere that the Church was interested in a counter-culture then.

Remember the angst around getting Henry VIII a son for an heir? When first Mary came to the throne then Elizabeth, things hadn't changed. Despite her awesome education and abilities Elizabeth was a woman and patently to her contemporaries unfit to rule. Even in one of her most famous speeches she still saw fit to apologise for having the body of a 'weak and feeble woman'; and many of her troubles were connected with the fact that she sometimes made her own decisions and would not be guided by her male advisers (from their point of view, naturally).

To say nothing of the 3-ringed circus surrounding her 'duty' to marry and breed a male heir for the country. Admittedly that would've happened had she been a bloke. But the fact she was a woman meant again she should have submitted to the opinions of her advisors in this question. Perhaps the most astonishing thing Elizabeth did during her reign was to resist this incredible pressure, at a time when an unmarried, barren woman - let alone a monarch - risked being seen almost as a witch.

Many within the Church - both Catholic and Reformed - lamented their female prince as somehow being a negative judgement from God upon them. Perfectly and totally in line with contemporary society's views on women's abilities.

It was many years before she was trusted by either her own political advisors and the people to actually be the queen in deed, as well as in name. And much of the contemporary society - including English society - at the time in Europe viewed England as a weak and easy target because it was being ruled by a woman.

The Church, till very recently, has always sat very cosily with the prejudicial mores of society in almost every aspect of life, including the aspect of women as second class humans. And even then has been slow, slow, slow to change on that score, even when society has shaken off its ignorance and eventually done the right thing.

So we're not really in any position to complain that the Church is losing its counter-cultural stance in leading the way for a lost and secularized society where the treatment of women are concerned, are we?

Our contemporary society, however, knows that these attitudes were wrong, irrational and born of ignorant prejudice. It's about time, indeed, that the Church recognized its own false perceptions in this particular regard.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
for the future and the first women bishops.

What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.
As usual, Britain is behind the times.

New Zealand had its first woman bishop twenty years ago.

New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893, 25 years before Britain got around to it.

On the other hand, the UK had a woman MP (Lady Astor) in 1919, 14 years before NZ (Elizabeth Reid McCombs).

And it is arguable that Mts McCombs only wom Lyttelton because she followed on from her deceased husband.

The Dio in which I live has a Bishop who is a woman. I'm not sure whether the Anglican church here has provision for alternate arrangements for those who may be unhappy with that.

Huia

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

The Church, till very recently, has always sat very cosily with the prejudicial mores of society in almost every aspect of life, including the aspect of women as second class humans. And even then has been slow, slow, slow to change on that score, even when society has shaken off its ignorance and eventually done the right thing.

So we're not really in any position to complain that the Church is losing its counter-cultural stance in leading the way for a lost and secularized society where the treatment of women are concerned, are we?

Our contemporary society, however, knows that these attitudes were wrong, irrational and born of ignorant prejudice. It's about time, indeed, that the Church recognized its own false perceptions in this particular regard.

Amen.

The Church is as good as any of us at justifying deep seated prejudices. Jesus found this with the 'church' and society of his time and was truly counter-cultural in speaking up against it.

<edited due to shameful spelling>

[ 13. July 2010, 11:51: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
IMO, those against having women bishops (and some also against lower ordained women) are having it from their prejudice deep within them, not always aware of that, and also having been taught spiritually wrongly - again from away back in their lives, and so they are using what they say as "correct Christianity"/"correct biblicalism" and don't realise they are prejudiced against women's status.

Erm. Let me try and stay within the realms of Purgatory.

daisymay, would you like to rephrase that in any way?

Thurible

Sorry, Thurible, I thought it might be OK to mention emotional/thinking/subconscious/unconscious habits and expressions that not everyone agrees with.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

I was objecting rather more to your statement that those opposed have been taught spiritually wrongly and that it is all to do with some sort of inate prejudice rather than anything to do with theological processes and spiritual discernment.

Thurible

Posted by hereweare (# 15567) on :

But Thurible you must know by now that obviously the Holy Spirit wants women priests and bishops, and if 'she' gets in wrong the first time (eg Wales) then the church will jolly well carry on voting until the HS catches up! And as for all those horrid people who think the Bible and 2000 years of tradition says women can't be ordained, are just unthinking bigots. Clearly those living in the 21st C have a far better understanding of what Jesus meant, does not our society show how we are in touch with the real teachings of Jesus.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?
It's a very fair question to ask, of course. But it depends which society, secular or otherwise, you're referring to. When the Church didn't permit women to be priests back in the, let's say, 17th, 18th and 19th century, they were perfectly in line with both the religious and civic mores of contemporary society. Positively colluding with it.

No gripes about falling in line with society then, I suppose?

Surely you've just made Yervan's point for him/her? "Being in step with society" isn't a guarantee of rightness, as the 17th-19th centuries' treatment of women prove.

Of course if someone had argued "The church must be wrong if it's not counter-cultural" then that would also be false, but no-one has said that.

[ 13. July 2010, 15:07: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

What is so embarassing about this women's rights issue is the backwardness of the church. We whould be the leaders, the frontrunners. A light to the world. We shouldn't be scrambing to catch up, decades too late. We were a light to the world in many issues such as anti-slavery. It is terrible that we should be in the position of having to come into line with secular society. We should have instituted the equality of women before secular society and encouraged them to come into line with us.

Of course Methodism had women preachers of equal status with men in the 18th century. However, this was discouraged and disallowed in the nineteenth. The Methodists brought them back in the twentieth century and have certainly managed to claw back the moral high ground on this issue since then. But they are a small church compared to the Anglicans and it is such a shame that they were the only ones to be a light to the world on this issue.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Leaving aside for a moment the question of why ordination and consecration should be restricted to men, has anyone else been troubled by Messrs Sugden and Giddings' comments on 'the problem of mono-episcopacy' in the Anglican Mainstream statement?

The shattering of the ancient principle of one ordinary for one diocese (the cracks have been spreading since the Act of Synod, since Charles Raven's little tantrum at St John's Kidderminster, since the powers that be decided to tread softly in the matter of border-crossings by African bishops in TEC) is going to cause immeasurable damage to the Church of England, as it already has to the Anglican Communion.

Choose your bishop! No need to be in communion with anyone you dislike or disagree with! If you live in Chichester---never mind! Demand a bishop who ordains women! If you live in Southwark, follow the folks in Morden and have your confirmations done by a guaranteed homophobe. If you live in Peterborough, don't wait to see if your new bishop revises his views on 'Jerusalem'. Call in a bishop who loves William Blake. And if you're starting to get angry with the Archbishop of Canterbury...never mind! There's a world of primates out there. One of them is bound to conform to your prejudices.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I haven't followed the minutiae of this debate so could someone tell me what happens to PEVs in this brave new world? Are they swept aside?

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?
It's a very fair question to ask, of course. But it depends which society, secular or otherwise, you're referring to. When the Church didn't permit women to be priests back in the, let's say, 17th, 18th and 19th century, they were perfectly in line with both the religious and civic mores of contemporary society. Positively colluding with it.

No gripes about falling in line with society then, I suppose?
Surely you've just made Yervan's point for him/her? "Being in step with society" isn't a guarantee of rightness, as the 17th-19th centuries' treatment of women prove.

Of course if someone had argued "The church must be wrong if it's not counter-cultural" then that would also be false, but no-one has said that.

No I haven't made his point for him. I'm demonstrating that the point he's making is specious and relative to the times.

Society and the Church were both wrong when they agreed and colluded to maintain the second class status of women. Society has not done a bad thing in seeing their error and permitting women to become doctors, scholars, lawyers etc; so his point that in permitting women to be ordained/consecrated the church is somehow compromising with evil society in society's attitudes towards women nowadays is rather a shaky argument.

As I said before there would have been no complaints in the church's collusion with society in older times; so it's hardly consistent to get areated that the church has - finally and reluctantly - agreed with society in this attitude. There are times for the church to be counter-cultural and sit apart from secularism and society.

There are times to recognize the face of Christ within and through societal reforms and attitudes.

The point that the church is doing wrong in following the example of society when society rightly and justly permits equality to women is entirely his own point. And rather a strange one, I thought.

Posted by rugbyplayingpriest (# 9809) on :

PEVS swept aside, no more resolutions, trads left at mercy of code of practice which bishops may or may not adopt. to rub salt into wounds these bishops also choose which functions any visiting bishop can excercise and what conditions to attach. To make it even worse there is no guarantee that these bishops were themselves ordained by men. So no apostolic succession just a sexist way to avoid a woman

And then they said no compensation. So I find myself offered hospice care, no future and no money with a young family and 30 yrs service left in the tank.

Gee thanks heartless Synod

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I don't understand why PEVs can't remain in post? I see the argument that the women bishops became inevitable when the first woman priest was ordained but this seems (as I understand it) to be a step backwards.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

The Bishop of Ebbsfleet's Pastoral Letter seems to imply that he thinks the whole thing is over. No more flying bishops, no more bishop of Ebbsfleet, no more Resolutions ABC, the separated parishes now move back under the ordinary Dicocesan and that is that, if you don't like it, you have to get out of the Church of Enlgand.

Does he have any justification for that view?

I can't see any but maybe he is privy to Secret Plots that the rest of us are ignorant of.

Presumably when someone gets round to writing a Code of Practice (& it might easily be 2013 or 2014 before that happens) they can, if they want, keep the PEVs and assorted Scheme Suffragans in it. So the battleground for the next Synod moves there.

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I don't think it is as simple as 'one-all'. There will be some anglo-catholics who will be happy for a Jeffrey John, but not women bishops, some evos who will be happy for women bishops but not a gay bishop, some not happy with either, some trying to work it all out and some happy with both. To create a narrative of modernisers against traditionalists is not helpful.

Exactly right. As I've gone on about at great lenght too often before, all four possible positions are occupied in the CofE - there are pro-gay anti-women priests, pro-gay pro-women, anti-gay anti-women, and anti-gay pro-women. As well as many who are neutral or indifferent on one or the other question. This is NOT a spectrum from "moderniser to "traditionalist" and none of those positions is neccessarily associated with political liberaluism or conservativism.

[ 13. July 2010, 18:10: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

If +Ebbsfleet really believed his own pastoral letter he would have resigned his post and gone to see the Cardinal to talk about his reception into the Roman Catholic Church.

But apparently he is going to make us read another one in September first.

Posted by Loveheart (# 12249) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
If +Ebbsfleet really believed his own pastoral letter he would have resigned his post and gone to see the Cardinal to talk about his reception into the Roman Catholic Church.

But apparently he is going to make us read another one in September first.

I saw that earlier today! Haven't been near his website for some months (can't stand his smug face), but thought I'd take a look. If I had to pick a PEV, it would be +Richborough.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The point that the church is doing wrong in following the example of society when society rightly and justly permits equality to women is entirely his own point. And rather a strange one, I thought.

Where does he make that point? He calls himself "very pro-OOW".

AIUI, all he's saying is that following society doesn't in itself make the Church's actions correct, and therefore "the Church needs to catch up with society" isn't in itself a clinching argument.

Posted by tallmaninthecnr (# 15429) on :

I am not meaning to be trite but where is Jesus in all this arguing, all this tradition? Without Him there is no church (big C or little c), no need to sit in pews, no need for the liturgy or the Eucharist, no need for anything . . . Is Jesus going to walk away from 'humble and contrite hearts' due to the sex or the sexual orientation of the person up the front who is preaching the Gospel, and if He is not going to then what right do we have.

Are these arguments about who is competent to bring the message of the Gospel to the world or about political point scoring and protecting of backyards.

I am sure there are some very sincere people debating the rights and wrongs, but from someone who is ignorant of all the theological supporting arguments it just does not seem right.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Loveheart:
(can't stand his smug face),

He hasn't looked like The Official Photo for nearly a decade!

There are various words I'd use to describe him (the vast majority positive) but 'smug' isn't one.

Thurible

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tallmaninthecnr:
I am not meaning to be trite but where is Jesus in all this arguing, all this tradition?

On your side, apparently.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:

quote:
What a long time lag after the first women voters, doctors, MPs etc! It's about time.

No offense, but thats a terrible argument (and I'm very pro-OOW). You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?
It's a very fair question to ask, of course. But it depends which society, secular or otherwise, you're referring to. When the Church didn't permit women to be priests back in the, let's say, 17th, 18th and 19th century, they were perfectly in line with both the religious and civic mores of contemporary society. Positively colluding with it.

No gripes about falling in line with society then, I suppose?
Surely you've just made Yervan's point for him/her? "Being in step with society" isn't a guarantee of rightness, as the 17th-19th centuries' treatment of women prove.

Of course if someone had argued "The church must be wrong if it's not counter-cultural" then that would also be false, but no-one has said that.
No I haven't made his point for him. I'm demonstrating that the point he's making is specious and relative to the times.

Society and the Church were both wrong when they agreed and colluded to maintain the second class status of women. Society has not done a bad thing in seeing their error and permitting women to become doctors, scholars, lawyers etc; so his point that in permitting women to be ordained/consecrated the church is somehow compromising with evil society in society's attitudes towards women nowadays is rather a shaky argument.

As I said before there would have been no complaints in the church's collusion with society in older times; so it's hardly consistent to get areated that the church has - finally and reluctantly - agreed with society in this attitude. There are times for the church to be counter-cultural and sit apart from secularism and society.

There are times to recognize the face of Christ within and through societal reforms and attitudes.

The point that the church is doing wrong in following the example of society when society rightly and justly permits equality to women is entirely his own point. And rather a strange one, I thought.

Pauses...asks the Good Lord for patience...continues.

Firstly, I'm a woman (its revealing that you assumed otherwise). Secondly, I'm pro-OOW, to the point where I wouldn't belong to a church that was otherwise. Thirdly, you have made my point for me quite nicely (thank you). And no I don't think "the church is doing wrong in following the example of society when society rightly and justly permits equality to women". You are reading something into my post that isn't there. I'm simply saying that a particular (popular) argument in favour of OOW is crap. There are lots of good arguments, so why waste our breathe on a bad one?

[ 14. July 2010, 10:33: Message edited by: Yerevan ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tallmaninthecnr:

Are these arguments about who is competent to bring the message of the Gospel to the world or about political point scoring and protecting of backyards.

I am sure there are some very sincere people debating the rights and wrongs, but from someone who is ignorant of all the theological supporting arguments it just does not seem right.

Too right. Although there are strong views on both sides of the argument, I think that the majority of the people in the pews really aren't that bothered one way or the other and I suspect that many of them are totally bemused by the whole thing.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Tallmaninthecnr: It all comes down to the question of authority i.e. how we know the will of God (and of Jesus as the second person of the Trinity). Do we look to scripture as the single over-arching source regarding what God wants for us? To tradition? How do we interpret these? Do we privilege some parts of scripture over others?
How do we balance them with experience or with what seems rational to us as individuals or societies or communities? Even if we say that we just look to Jesus, we still have to decide how accurately he is portrayed in the gospels, let alone the epistles. All the big current debates in the church really come down to how we discern the will of God. We can't just shrug that question off.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Yerevan, I can't imagine what it reveals that I should assume you're a bloke. It means nothing to me what sex you are. Though I do apologise if I insinuated you held a view you don't hold.

Generally speaking, I know too many guys who are much more committedly feminist than I'll ever be or want to be, and too many women who'd love to burn women priests in effigy, to give a tinker's what's in the trousers when it comes to who says what. I can think of few weaker indications of a person's tendancy to bias than their genitals.

quote:
You're basically berating Christians for not falling into line with the rest of (secular) society sooner. Why should we fall into line with the rest of society?

Simply put, my answer to this is; we should fall into line with the rest of society, because in this case society is right and the church is wrong. And Christians, in this case should be berated for not falling into line sooner. Though naturally, I personally would prefer to leave room for appropriate respect for the conscience of those who think women's priesting is just an aberration.

That society is sometimes wrong, so what. I haven't made any argument that we should do something just because society does it. I'm not sure why this point has kept coming up.

We're not, so far as I know, talking about each and every thing that has ever happened in every society that has ever existed until now. We're discussing the issue of women's equality, where in certain societies the way of justice and common sense has long been espoused and practiced. Wouldn't it be good, I naively asked if we could learn something from society in that regard.

If I were to say couldn't we learn something from Satan's own tenacity at applying himself so committedly and steadfastly to his mission to screw up the world, would I be accused of being a devil-worshipper? I think we can learn things from how God's justice works through society, occasionally, without being accused of being sell-outs to evil contemporarienism. (I know, it's probably not a real word!)

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

You're still misinterpreting my argument, so I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:

quote:
Originally posted by Loveheart:
(can't stand his smug face),
He hasn't looked like The Official Photo for nearly a decade!

There are various words I'd use to describe him (the vast majority positive) but 'smug' isn't one.

Indecisive?

Anglican? Roman Catholic? He needs to make his mind up.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
You're still misinterpreting my argument, so I'm not going to bother repeating myself.

Well, in that case, I can only sincerely apologise for genuinelly not getting your point, and I appreciate it must be frustrating for you if I'm not getting it. I'll be the first to say I can be slow in that way.

I'm frustrated too. You asked the clear, and good, question 'why should we fall into line...' and I've given an answer why we should. I honestly don't see how there can be much room for misinterpretation, or why my response is so difficult to apply to your question.

Perhaps what is meant is that the church shouldn't have to look to society for its examples of justice and godly behaviour; that the church has better premises, or arguments, for its decisions based on other things - though I wonder what they are, to be frank, outside of certain readings of scripture.

Well, I don't see why it's a bad argument using the example of God's justice as seen in society to reinforce the, still largely failed, mission of God's justice within the church. In the Old Testament it was the outcast lepers in the camp outside the city that had God's message for the 'Chosen' people inside the city. I don't think God has greatly changed his modus operandi in that regard.

But again I am sincerely sorry if I'm missing your point. You may think that I'm just a prejudiced hag who posted against you only because I thought you were a man (thanks for that!), but I have tried very hard here to address what you wrote. Thanks for engaging with me anyway, so patiently. I have appreciated and valued the exchange.

Posted by Zeno (# 7495) on :

Does anyone have Bishop Andrew's office address so I know where to send the cheque for his leaving present? Ta.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I notice that when I google the See of Ebbsfleet my Norton security checker gives it a question mark and 'site untested'. Seems appropriate, somehow.

I'll take Thurible's word for it that he doesn't look like the official photo. Just as well: it makes him look like the episcopus vagans that he more or less is.

[ 01. September 2010, 21:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
for the future and the first women bishops.

First CofE women bishops, perhaps. The Church of Norway has had women bishops since 1994.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm frustrated too. You asked the clear, and good, question 'why should we fall into line...' and I've given an answer why we should.

I think the point is that your answer for why we should fall in line with society in this instance is completely instance specific. Hence, all those arguments could stand on their own without any reference to falling in line with society. I think that was Yerevan's point - that the fact that society is there already is irrelevant to the rightness/wrongness of the argument.

However, as a different tack I'd suggest that it is easier to understand what is right when there is an example of it already. It was harder to see equality issues when everyone "knew" that women were inferior humans. Once there is an example of equality becoming an issue, the church becomes more culpable for not getting it right on that issue. Not that the church should uncritically adopt everything that is exemplified or lauded elsewhere, but that the church should think critically about the question posed.

I liken it to parking on a yellow line vs parking on a yellow line after a passerby has pointed out the yellow line. We don't regard passers by as sound sources of information, but the fact that they've pointed out something we should be able to see and evaluate for ourselves does make us more culpable still.

Posted by Peregrinus Balticus (# 14728) on :

Noting that no one has added any comments for over a month now, and that therefore this is a Moribund Thread, i merely wish to take this opportunity to rejoice with my fellow Christians in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (where I happen to live) at the fact that the new Bishop of Helsinki, as from 1 September, is a member of the female polarity of our species. And I sigh at the legalisms and posturings that mean that even a clear majority decision in General Synod C of E will take several years to implement.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I'll accept that the thread was conceived past moribund given the board title, but there are a few posts in the last month...

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :

I suspect that Peregrinus Balticus didn't realise that there was another page - a mistake I've made often enough as well!

Welcome aboard P B

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Ah yes. That favourite mistake of mine too. My other favourite was when my browser would behave oddly in not updating pages I'd previously visited without pushing something, and so I'd frequently compose replies to something out of date which become completely redundant once I saw the updated page.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0