Posted by Helen on: 07.10.2008 /
The Church of England took a step closer to having women bishops this week. Their General Synod agreed to the idea of a national code of practice including their ordination. It will take several years to draw up this code of practice and bring it to a final vote but it does open the door to women bishops.
You can read about it here it in The Guardian or even watch a short video with the two most powerful Archbishops in England making short comments and then the announcement of the results of the voting.
The Guardian article focuses a lot on how the clergy who opposed this move were not accommodated. Which is interesting to me since women are 50% of the population (and probably more than 50% of the church based on the statistics I hear about churchgoers). Why is it more important to accommodate a few guys who believe God doesn’t like women leaders than it is to accommodate all the women in the church?
Hopefully it’s not because those guys are men.
Comment by: joe
1Don’t take this personally, but I’m curious why you care, Helen.
Plenty of faith groups have some kind of exclusion in their leadership - for example in Hinduism (presumably) one cannot be a priest unless born into the right caste. Are you also concerned about equality there?
To me, as an Anglican (and to be fair, I am regularly told that I’m not a ‘real’ Anglican), the most important issue is not which gender take on the ceremonial roles, but whether the ceremonial roles have anything whatsoever to do with Christianity at all.
Comment by: Helen
2Joe, I care because while I can’t stop people believing that God doesn’t want women leaders, I’m glad to see that that belief losing some of its ability to influence church codes of practice.
I think it’s equally wrong that people can only be Hindu priests if they’re born into the right caste, yes.
I used to accept the limitation on roles when I was a member of churches that didn’t allow women equality in leadership by deciding that other things were more important, rather like you do. I understand where you’re coming from and maybe this is not the biggest thing wrong with the Anglican church but even so I’m glad to see what to me is a step in the right direction on this particular issue.
It might be related to other issues - it reflects C of E leaders getting their heads out of a book or church office long enough to notice that women are as fit to lead as men. If they’re noticing that then maybe they will notice some other ways in which their church is missing the mark also.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
3I am - unlike gender (which is God given) the caste system originated with Satan!
Comment by: joe
4Presumably you also think that Jewish exclusivity of the Levites was also Satanic, Jim?
I just think it isn’t worth any time getting hot under the collar about how other people organise themselves. Far more disturbing is the notion amongst evangelical churches that one needs to wear a suit and have a doctorate to be a leader IMO.
Comment by: no offense
5Apples and oranges
Comment by: joe
6Why?
Comment by: Rose
7How the Church organizes herself speaks volumes to those considering following Jesus as well as those that by being born female are marginalized from any area of service in the Church. I am with Helen, it might not be the biggest wrong the Anglican church is dealing with but it is an important issue in our day and age.
Any issue of justice–the lack of gender/biblical equality, caste, slavery, you name it is apples and oranges to what one wears to worship or the how and why God worked with Israel within history, not even the same issue so makes no sense to compare. Whether the ceremonial roles have a place or not, giving women (Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female) equal access in whatever system is the issue I see here.
Comment by: Helen
8Joe wrote:
I don’t like that notion about evangelical churches but it bothers me even more that in many of those churches, if a woman with a PhD and doctorate and suit showed up she’d be excluded because of her DNA. Regardless of her gifts and qualifications.
There are so many issues with the Levitical system I wouldn’t know where to start…
Comment by: benjamin ady
9Jim
I’m curious what you mean when you say “originated with Satan”
Are you thinking supernatural evil personal being?
Just curious… =)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10Yes - I believe in that version of evil (BICBW)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
11IMO that cant even come close to being compared- The Caste system is straight up evil- no exceptions allowed
Comment by: joe
12OK, listen I don’t want to fall out over this - I was taking an extreme position to make a point.
The Indian Caste system certainly is evil. The notion that someone only exists to clean other people’s toilets is just foul.
But to be fair, that isn’t really my point. I’m saying that in Hinduism there is a class of priests just as in Judaism there is/was the Levites. In that (and in that aspect alone) I can’t really see that there is any material difference.
The suit-and-degree ministers are far more damaging to me because (a) I go to a church where that influence is strong and (b) I am not a member of another religion.
In my opinion, I have a right to discuss ethics and behaviour within a church of which I am a part, but have no rights to start passing those kinds of judgements on other faiths or religions.
If there is agreement that certain sexes have certain roles within church, I’ve no problem with that as long as women are free to leave and I don’t have to go to that church. If I don’t go there, I can’t see it is my problem.
Comment by: Helen
13Joes, I have a comment and a question: first, there clearly isn’t agreement; second, why did you post about Todd Bentley kicking a cancer patient hard in the stomach as a method of bringing him divine healing - do you consider him part of your group?
Comment by: joe
14Atch, well spotted Helen.
In my defence, the Todd Bentley teaching is having a direct influence on people in the Christians I directly interact with.
But you’re quite right, I’m applying double standards.
Comment by: Helen
15Thanks Joe - I think it comes down to what seems most egregious to each of us.
Some women might feel that the way some churches treat women is pretty much like being kicked hard in an area already susceptible to pain.