Women Bishops!

Purely on an academic level, all texts are open to interpretation. Especially those which have been translated, handed down from the past and re-written by academics, clerics and heads of state (all with their own agendas). All I know is that I do not believe anyone of whatever sex, race, religion etc etc, is somehow better or worse at explaining that we would all get on a lot better if we showed compassion and love for our fellow man, whilst reminding us that everyone is fallible and subject to weaknesses, except perhaps that special being (if one believes) - I'm still not sure but find it wonderful that many do and I fully accept they get great comfort from doing so.

I'm sure we have all met women who would have made lovely priests if that route had been open to them when they were younger. And the male ones you come across are a mixed bag. One wedding we went to in and Anglican church was conducted entirely in that Derek Nimmo voice and he kept the congregation standing throughout the ceremony so all one could see were the hats in front.

We had a woman vicar officiating at my sister's funeral several years ago and another woman vicar at my mum's funeral last year. They were absolutely wonderful. So sincere and gentle. I think it will be great to have women bishops.

There will be no churches in 50years let alone 500,Why do you think they are mostly empty.The teachings of the bible are not being followed.Anything goes today.Whats religion? And what's the point ,if it all changes again.I most strongly believe in equality right across the board.But the church should have stayed the same solid foundation it always was.Something you could always turn to,knowing it would always be the same.even when things were falling around you.
And NO,I'm not a feminist,there's no need,I'm confident enough to know I can do and be what ever I really want.

I'm not CofE and I don't particularly care if there are woman bishops. I'm sure there are good and bad amongst all vicars regardless of gender. A vicar isn't the same as a police officer, doctor or any other job. To believers they're a link between God and man/woman. Some consideration has to be given to those who have spent their whole lives in a male led church and don't feel comfortable with the changes. A male bishop may allow some parishes to have female vicars, male vicars who support the inclusion of female vicars and vicars who are against female vicars. In such a diocese the worshipper can choose which church to attend. If the diocese has a female bishop what will happen to the vicars who don't agree with female vicars. They may stay for a while but eventually all parishes will became either female led or female supporter led as those against female vicars will choose to work in other dioceses.

Is the CofE working on the theory that eventually if given no choice all worshippers will simply accept the new status quo?

I enjoyed *MARMARK"S post !!

I have nothing in theory against women priests. I have met a few and as I said previously I have never met one that I personally was comfortable with.
On the other hand I have met women who, if they had chosen the priesthood I would have been happy with.
Perhaps it's just our diocese?

And why not

Marmark
"I'm not a feminist, there's no need, I'm confident enough to know I can do and be what ever I really want."

That is exactly what feminists in the past fought for you to be allowed to do and be, to vote, to graduate, to control your own money, to be guardian to your own children. It is what real feminists are still fighting to achieve for women all over the world. Not the strident ones who rant against men, but the ones who want women to be strong and free and to re-educate those diehard chauvinists who would still like to keep their womenfolk barefoot and pregnant. They still exist, and milllions of women are not able to do and be whatever they really want.

Feminism is not just a quaint bit of history which can now be dropped as not needed. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"

purpledaffodil Yep! St Paul was a great misogynist as my RE teacher said.

1 Corinthians 14:34
"Women should keep silent in church"

Colossians 3:18

"women submit to husbands" These bits of "advice" were repeated in various of his letters to his churches.

He was no different to most men of his time. Unfortunately those who take the Bible literally fail to realise that it written for how society was 2000 years ago and not a modern society.

Elegran
Poor little you.
Look in your History books,there have always been strong women.We don't need anybody to fight for us.As for some things,evolution would have taken care of that.We used to run around with spears once.Or our Men did.Mind you,women did too,no doubt.
Regards to you.You keep fighting.Im cool with my life.Nobody would dare try to rule me.

Lucky you Marm that you don't live in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc then.

No,Aka,I live in England.How other countries rule is no concern of mine,with the greatest respect.

Thankfully there are many feminists around who fought for the rights we now have. Some or most of which I am sure you have appreciated Marm??

Standing alone as a strong woman is all very well but no one would have heard your voice!

Your hearing it.Do you need a tissue?

I'm not religious but if we can rely on at least some of what the Bible records about him, I feel Jesus was a compassionate and inspirational person whose ideas were light years ahead. I see him as a radical who challenged established ideas and hierarchies. Yet is seems that, despite several notable exceptions, historically the church has been very much part of the establishment and has been responsible for maintaining hierarchies rather than challenging them.

Although the C of E has finally changed its stance regarding the role of women in the church, it's certainly dragged its feet on the matter. And the Catholic church is even further behind.

It's interesting that some women also feel uncomfortable with the idea of women preachers. I think it's because something which is unfamiliar takes a while to get used to. They used to say the same thing about women newsreaders - that their voices weren't suitable and that the public would never accept them. I'm not sure anyone feels like that now - do they?

Marmark whatever you call yourself, you are indeed a feminist.

They said the same about women doctors and lawyers, and as for members of parliament! Shock horror!!!!

Suffragettes and pioneer medical and legal students gained a toehold in their professions for women, and government is now open to women, but there are by no means totally equal attitudes to women, and in some countries and under some regimes they are discriminated against and even killed for wanting the minimum opportunity - education to start to prepare themselves for a career. No chance to do what you want or be what you want without education.

The church will evolve to accept women bishops and even - who knows - a woman pope? That would be interesting.

at least some of what the Bible records about him, I feel Jesus was a compassionate and inspirational person whose ideas were light years ahead. I see him as a radical who challenged established ideas and hierarchies. Yet is seems that, despite several notable exceptions, historically the church has been very much part of the establishment and has been responsible for maintaining hierarchies rather than challenging them.

From what I have read, Jesus' closest confidante was Mary Magdalene - which brought about a fair bit of resentment from Paul (or it might have been Peter, I can't remember which). I put most of the blame squarely on religion for the way women ended up being treated.

There is a fascinating series of interviews on DVD, with theologians, historians and various priests, called 'Banned From the Bible' and it helps to explain the many anomalies in the Bible (e.g. that Eve was not Adam's first wife (ergo - she can not be the first woman) but his third - the first wife isn't given a name in any of the texts but the second wife was Lilith - and how often is she mentioned other than as an undesirable demonic woman! Now I wonder why that came about ...).

Marmark Are you really saying that if women were all like you there would be equality?

The fact is that women were barred from holding high office and you most certainly could not have previously "done whatever you wanted" if what you wanted was to be a vicar. However strong, determined and able a woman might be counts for nothing if an organisation has the right to exclude her from holding certain positions.

Yes, I am hearing you Marm but like many, I realised in the 60's my voice alone wouldn't change anything.

It surprises me that you haven't worked this one out yet.

Can't think why you feel I need a tissue. Possibly tears of laughter.

Sorry to have gone off topic but in response to the OP, - long overdue.

Holly it was Peter and James, Paul/Saul didn't come onto the scene til later.

I was brought up C of E, and because there were almost all females in the congregation, and males up near the altar, I thought it looked as if the females were worshiping the males!
Always had doubts and converted to another religion later.
But before that I had a very dear room-mate at University who later became one of the first female priests. I was a witness at her adult baptism.
Lost touch sadly, but I'm sure she made a wonderful priest. I'm not sure if she would have been such a good bishop.
From the feminist point of view, I'm not a real feminist, I think our differences mean that our strong points lead us to excel in different roles.