If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
There is no evidence that Jesus intended women to do all the work with none of the calling!
I will respond in more detail later, I'm on my phone at a conference so it's tricky!
Oi you! Leave the straw men erection and their burning to us pagans!
On a serious note, what I find dumb founding is the fact that if they were any other kind of organisation they would be getting slapped with a huge discrimination case, and MADE to change their ways. Personally I couldn't give a monkey's shitty arse about their religious freedoms when historically they have taken away that from hundreds of thousands of people. It's not tit for tat, I believe the same across all religions - they should make the equality and diversity laws apply across the board.
OK, so I said I'd respond in more detail. Here goes; women were active church leaders in the Book of Acts, and are referenced as churchleaders extensively in Paul's writings (source). Women in Acts are credited with the same gifts as their male counterparts. Writing in the 3rd and 4th century, Eusebius credits Philip's daughters with early ministry in Asia - giving them the sort of prominence in early evangelism that St. Paul shares.
I would argue that the post-Constantine church has actively suppressed women's ministry in a way that is not in keeping with the early church. There are references in the epistles to women's ministry being unpalatable, but bear in mind that these letters have a very clear context. They were written to a particular church in response (presumably) to correspondence that has not survived. In the context of the scriptures as a whole, these prohibitions on women (quoted by Fiend above) are a very minor part not just of the whole Bible but even of the letters from which they are drawn.
Women and men are undoubtedly different in innumerable ways, but their intellectual and spiritual capacities are not all that dissimilar. To say that women can be priests but not bishops is not just sexist, it's completely inconsistent. A bishop is just another kind of priest. And whilst I am totally in favour of empowering the laity, it is not good enough to say "it's ok, they can do the flowers, and maybe give a reading". Think of all the different theological and pastoral perspectives that are lost when women are suppressed.
I agree. And to know the intentions of the authors is really hard, especially in the case of the letters. I do think it's telling that none of the Gospel writers make a reference to women not having a place in ministry.
I think that ironically, having a state church has a sort of moderating effect on religion, because it has to at least be vaguely in line with public opinion, and offers a default choice for anyone that way inclined. In America, they have more of a free market of religion, where you get a race to the bottom in how "Christian" they can be. You'll notice that most of the European countries with official state churches are pretty moderate in their religious beliefs, with the only countries matching America for religious nutjobbery being the Catholic-dominated ones (which individual governments have far less influence over).
I'd like to contest a number of things that have been said here. Firstly, at least one (possibly more) have said that people simply use the Bible to justify their prejudices. That's wrong. While some people might be hold the same views if they didn't have the Bible; it's not the case that people simply use the Bible to justify prejudices. I'll use myself as an example. I became a Christian in 2009, prior to that my views on religion were somewhat akin to those of Richard Dawkins. About 11 months before becoming a Christian I stood in a room packed to the brim with Christians and debated them; I even labelled them all as mentally ill and a bunch of schizophrenics. I wasn't raised in religious family. (I'll not bore you with the story of how I underwent such a radical change) I was a vocal and public supporter of a whole range of issues that I now take a completely different view on since becoming a Christian. It has been about undertaking, over almost the last 4 years, a very deep and detailed study of the Bible. That included looking at history and understanding the events that were happening at the time the relevant passages in the Bible were written. When you undertake a proper study of the Bible in that way you tend to discover that the passages which seem to contradict one another, especially when removed from context, are not actually contradictory.
On the subject of women in leadership I've not formed a settled theological position. I've never really had much cause to think about it. I am a member of a church that has women in leadership, but as a member I've not yet had to vote on whether to approve a female into a leadership post. In light of that I've not considered the issue in any great detail (although it is on my list of topics to consider).
In respect of an established church, I believe that there should be no such thing. When Jesus walked upon the earth he stayed well away from politics in the formal sense. He spoke from the outside. It's the role of the Church to minister to society, not to dictate to it. Faith in Christ is a choice; one that each of us has to make without coercion. The church definatley has a role to play in politics; but it shouldn't be a formal one. There shouldn't, for instance, be 26 seats in a legislature reserved for people simply because they are senior clergymen. I belong to a denomination of the church that resulted out of a stand for religious freedom; a stand against the King dictating to everyone that they must be a Christian. Pretending to be a Christian doesn't get you into the Kingdom of Heaven: Christ is quite clear about that in Matthew 7:21-23
However, in the same way that the Church has no right to dictate to society; society has no right to dictate to the Church. The Bible is clear that Christians are to be in the world, but not of the world (Romans 12:2). In other words they are to be a visible presence in the world (i.e. getting along with life and engaging in society), but that they are not to conform to what goes on in the world. If society decides that something is 'progressive' or 'acceptable' then the Church shouldn't simply adopt that. A Christian has to consider what the will of God is; to consider what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:2). When Christians talk about making the church more progressive and relevant; what they should be referring to is how church is done and how the message of the Gospel is taken to the wider world. That means using technological advances or organising church services in a more contemporary way (two examples of being in the world). However, the Church shouldn't simply just change doctrine because society has "moved on". Only if, after careful consideration, the Church arrives at the conclusion its previous doctrine was incorrect should it alter its doctrine (complying with Romans 12:2).
As an example, I do not consider the introduction of same-sex marriage to be biblical. However, I would never try and prevent society from introducing it if that is what society wishes to do. There is a slight caveat to that. Society has to be prepared to accept the view of the Church and not to engage in playground name-calling behaviour. Society also has to respect religious freedom and not expect the Church to conduct marriages which it considers to be unbiblical. However, that doesn't mean a complete ban on same-sex marriages being conducted in religious premises. That doesn't respect religious freedom where some religions would not have an issue with conducting same-sex marriages. (I give this purely as a contemporary example of what I mean about church and state being separate).
In terms of the actual vote that the Church of England took on the issue of Women Bishops; there has been a lot of talk about the process. The process requires (bear in mind I'm not an Anglican and I only have the most basic understanding the Church of England's General Synod and voting processes) that there be a 2/3 majority in each of the three houses (House of Bishops, House of Clergy and House of Laity). This might seem somewhat undemocratic or obscure. However; I consider it to be quite Christian in nature. It is about having respect for minority opinions and about trying to take the whole church along together on important matters of doctrine. A vote to allow women bishops is a significant matter of doctrine (it might not seem like it to a post-modern society where thought is very different). It will affect the church for decades. If it were to pass on a bare majority (say 51% to 49%) you have a sizable number who do not agree with the doctrine of the church. This provides for division and disunity and is more likely to cause the church to implode than the result of the recent vote.
I realise that much of this is, somewhat, irrelevant to the whole topic of women bishops in the Church of England. However, it does directly address a number of points raised by people earlier in the topic. Given that I have no settled theological position on women in church leadership either there isn't much that I can usefully add to that particular topic. If you?ve made it to the end then thanks for sticking with it!
You can - and I say this as a Christian who has studied theology - find a verse in the Bible to justify almost anything. To form a coherent ethic centred on the Bible, you have to be selective about what you take note of and what you disregard. There is no such thing as Biblical literalism, there can't be.
That was me, I also said "in my experience". I am of course referring to people who will tattoo themselves with the quote from Leviticus about homosexuality being an abomination, ignoring the fact that it says "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves".
I'm talking about Exodus sanctioning slavery, the support for stoning, that you should kill people who work on a Sabbath etc. I find it amusing that those parts of ignored. However, when a prejudice is to be backed up well then it's fine to quote those same parts of "The Good Book".
I have no issue with faith per se but I *do* have an issue with it being used to justify being a prick.
I understand where you're coming from, but that's a discussion for another place (it's *way* off topic for this thread)!
Not really when the Bible is used to justify the exclusion of women.