Women, know your place

[Gob]

The general synod of the Church of England has voted narrowly against the appointment of women as bishops.

The measure was passed by the synod's houses of bishops and clergy but was rejected by the house of laity.

Supporters vowed to continue their campaign but it will be five years before a similar vote can be held.

Controversy had centred on the provisions for parishes opposed to women bishops to request supervision by a stand-in male bishop.

The measure needed two-thirds majorities in each of the synod's three houses.

The votes were 44 for and three against with two abstentions in the House of Bishops, 148 for and 45 against in the House of Clergy, and 132 for and 74 against in the House of Laity.

The vote in the House of Laity, at 64%, was just short of the required majority.

Just six more "yes" votes would have tipped it over the two-thirds mark needed.

The decision came at the end of a day of debate by supporters and opponents - and a 12-year legislative process.

Twenty years after the introduction of women priests, the issue has continued to divide traditionalists - among those on the Church's evangelical and Anglo-catholic wings - from reformers.

[oldr_n_wsr]

They must be anti-women.

[dgs49]

I think the headline may be misleading. They voted for it by a significant majority, but failed to capture enough votes to pass the measure.

Interesting that a country that gave us one of the greatest woman leaders in history is wobbly on whether women can handle positions of authority.

Ironically, if a similar vote were taken in the Catholic Church the results would be the same: a clear majority would favor ordaining and consecrating women. But the Catholic Church doesn't do anything significant by majority rule.

[Guinevere]

Thank God the Episcopal Church of the USA (whose Presiding Bishop is a kick ass woman) figured out this issue, oh, about 35+ years ago . . .

[MajGenl.Meade]

Actually I'd give the credit to God about 1950+/- years ago. An elder must be the husband of but one wife; Elder = Bishop; therefore Bishop = male.

And He wasn't endorsing SSM

Meade

[Guinevere]

So women can never have positions of leadership in the church because of the mysterious "word of god" handed down millenia ago?

Um, no. Not in the real world.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So women can never have positions of leadership in the church because of the mysterious "word of god" handed down millenia ago?

Um, no. Not in the real Christian church world.

Fixed. The real Christian church believes in the real word of God inspired by Him and recorded less than two millenia ago. Those who don't believe it are (quite simply) not Christians but something else. It's a free world and there are many non-Christian churches out there to choose from - including UCC, American Episcopal and so on.

... and who said anything about leadership? The issue was Bishops.

[Guinevere]

Do not edit my words, please and thank you.

And are not Bishops leaders of the churches?

You're telling me that the Epicopalians aren't *real* Christians? Wow. What stunning closed-mindedness.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I said "fixed" - which I'm given to understand means joking rather than editing but no offence meant - sorry.

I don't know whether individual members of this or that denomination are "real" Christians, born from above (or 'again' whichever is preferred). Maybe almost all are. Maybe few.

At issue is whether the denomination teaches that the Bible is the only authentic inspired and recorded word of God (which encompasses all the teachings of Jesus that can be known of course) and that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

If not, then not. Don't blame me. He said it.

Meade

[oldr_n_wsr]

Not being a "Bible person" I will ask, did Jesus explicitly declare that in his "new" religion (Christianity) that women cannot be leaders?
That is a real question.
Thanks

[Big RR]

There's no record of jesus ever saying anything about that in the bible (or in any other contemporaneous writings) so far as I know (well, not really, when asked about the policy at the time of men marrying their brother's widows (which made sense since women ususally needed men to take care of them in that society) and its effects on who they will be married to in the afterlife, he didn't condemn it, but hinted it wasn't a problem as men and women are different in the after life and who they are married to is not important). It took the others coming after him to tell us what god really wanted.

But kidding aside, the passage Meade cites is being interpreted fairly broadly--basically all it says is that an elder cannot be part of a polygamous relationship (An elder must be the husband of but one wife). Since those relationships at the time (and even now so far as i know) always involved men with multiple wives and not the opposite, saying an elder could have only one huspband would be redundant and meaningless--women could not have more than one husband, elder or not. So, one could interpret it to also say that elders can only be unmarried men, married men with only one wife, and married or unmarried women--all married women would only have one husband. But then, putting women in authority threatens some, hence that broader interpretation.

then again, what do I know, I'm part of "non-Christian" UCC. See you all in hell!

[oldr_n_wsr]

See you all in hell!

Not if I see you first.

[Big RR]

I'll bring the scotch.

Sorry oldr; bad choice. I'll bring the snacks.

[Lord Jim]

Well, you guys have fun...

I'm afraid those of us who have decided to Just Say No to death will have to miss the party....

[Big RR]

Now, now Jim; we're not dying either. Just moving on to a warmer place.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I'll bring the scotch.

Sorry oldr; bad choice. I'll bring the snacks.

Right after I die, I am going on the bender to end all benders. So bring plenty.

[Big RR]

OK, I definitely will then; and maybe we won't have hangovers after we die.

[Gob]

THE religion aspect of the Church of England is still more problematic than any gender discrimination, it has been claimed.



As the Church’s general synod voted against the ordination of female bishops, the public agreed it was sad indeed that anyone still believed in a temperamental, invisible sky-being.

Mother-of-two Emma Bradford said: “I can’t believe that in this day and age, women still find themselves wanting to be priests.

“Especially when there are other career options like working at the Natural History Museum, a place which is absolutely chock full of dinosaur bones, fossils, tools fashioned by early hominids and other stuff not mentioned in the Bible.

“Although in fairness the Bible does have a bit where some kids are attacked by bears for mocking a bald man. Which is pretty relevant today in the sense that it’s still highly entertaining.”

Meanwhile, Vatican insiders insist it is just a matter of centuries before the Catholic church accepts women bishops.

Stephen Malley, editor of The Catholic Tablet, said: “We take a more cautious view on the theologically immensely nuanced, complex subject of whether women are as good as men.

“We will be reviewing the threat of eternal damnation to those who use contraceptives in roughly the year 8765, and the celibacy of the priesthood in 13265, about the time when the continent of Africa is due to fuse again with mainland Europe.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But kidding aside, the passage Meade cites is being interpreted fairly broadly--basically all it says is that an elder cannot be part of a polygamous relationship (An elder must be the husband of but one wife). Since those relationships at the time (and even now so far as i know) always involved men with multiple wives and not the opposite, saying an elder could have only one huspband would be redundant and meaningless--women could not have more than one husband, elder or not. So, one could interpret it to also say that elders can only be unmarried men, married men with only one wife, and married or unmarried women--all married women would only have one husband. But then, putting women in authority threatens some, hence that broader interpretation.

Ah UCC - that explains a lot! One of the denominations that doesn't believe the Bible is inspired by God. Shame you didn't put the kidding aside though . . .

Jesus pointed out to the Samaritan woman at the well that she had had five (5) husbands - perhaps you need to revise a bit?

And to interpret "an elder must be the husband of but one wife" to mean "an elder may be an unmarried man" is to carry the words "broader interpretation" to a new level of irrelevance.

Please turn to Titus 1 - the masculine pronoun "he" is repeatedly used; to interpret "he" to mean "a woman" is to interpret scripture as "broad" as it gets

[Big RR]

Irrelevance? Please elaborate. Indeed, doesn't the RC church interpret that to mean he must be only married to the church?

As for interpreting "he" to mean male and female, I wasn't aware ai was doing that; however, a woman cannot have a husband, can she?