LONDON (AFP) - More than 1,300 Church of England clergy have written to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, threatening to leave the church if proposals allowing women to be consecrated as bishops are passed, The Times reported Tuesday.

Citing a copy of the letter that it had seen, the newspaper reported that the signatories, 60 percent of whom are serving clergy, including 11 bishops, will only accept the plans if there are areas where worship is led exclusively by males.
Click here

What a bunch of ding-dongs.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Looks like the majority is in favor of it. The opponents are most likely a bunch of old farts who naturally resist any change.

It is their organization with a long established tradition. They should not have to change it for your sensibilities especially if you are not a member.

I didnt realize a man had better credentials to teach the love of God or Church over a woman...and he would be better at it then a female could...

Where does it say this shouldnt be??? Egotism at its greatest...... Shame on them.

I love my Lord perhaps more than some men, and perhaps not as much as some other females may...

No one is better than another....

And it looked like the majority voted to change. So, change they will it appears. Good for them.

agreed . someone should say to them ' don't let the door hit you on the way out '

Well it still has not been officially changed and the vote is yet to come. We shall see what happens and it is not like any of us are practicing Anglicans so whatever shall be will not affect us. My only point is no one would want anyone going into their congregations or fellowships and name calling them for not wanting to change a part of their tradition. It is the name calling that struck me the most within this thread but oh well others feel they have a right to insult anyone who disagrees with them it seems...

They are just defending the explicit instructions in the bible regarding women in relationship to god/preaching etc.

They are being true to the word of god and their church's original doctrine.

But of course I don't have to agree with it.

Actually women are allowed to be clergy since 1993. The short letter they wrote to the Canterbury and York states this and also mentions something about a promise that it would not be taken further or something along those lines. Now they are proposing to allow women into the bishopric. The Anglican Church already had to face a group of dissenters mainly from Africa and Asia leaving before this incident so it is all bad timing for them. It is interesting in a historical aspect since the current church was made by order of Henry VIII. Most likely there are many who just dislike Christianity and would not mind seeing them fall apart.

If that is true, and there are explicit instructions - why would they change it?

How many parts can you change or take out of Christianity, per the Bible, before it is totally meaningless?

Personally I think there are many many a priori judgements about what to follow in the Bible, to fit in with social mores of the time. Usually under the guise of 'interpretation' or it's a cultural/historical part that no longer applies.

Yes, god should have issued new gospels to fit the current time instead of believers having to adjust it to suit their own liking.

There are a whole lot of Christians, myself included that believe Christ's message was one of equality, complete equality... for ALL people.

I don't deny that they have a right to conduct their business the way they'd like to, but I can say I disagree with the unequal treatment of the sexes. And, I have a right to comment on that. Of course, it was the Anglican Church who historically liked to imprison Quakers over about a 200 year span for *gasp* allowing women to act as ministers.

It's a small part of the reason so many Quakers ended up in the USA in the 1600's.

(and yes, we have a handful of Anglican's on UM)

Why doesn't God reach down and update the Bible for this century ?


1 Timothy 2:11-12 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. Do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.


Jesus specifically states that the laws of the Old Testament still stand here:

In Matthew 5:18 Jesus says:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm

But they are supposed to be Christian. Jesus condemned people following man-made traditions instead of God's. And Jesus said that all should go out and teach the world who he was, and what his message was. He never said "now you men go and preach the gospel." Women were very prominent in the Gospel narratives. Just becasue the 1800's England suppressed women, doesn't make it right. Let women be Bishops and Pastors, etc.

Paul says this once. It is not a common theme. And, should not CHRISTians follow Christ? You can't put Paul over Jesus.

And where in the OT did it say this about women? Also, Jesus did change a lot of the OT stuff, if you keep reading. Jesus' message was different on every level compared to the OT.

Jesus did not give directives for every facet of life. I suppose if he doesn't mention something is it giving it his tacit approval, or would you look to other parts of the Bible for guidance?

A. Women Are Subject to Men
Many passages teach the subjection of women to men in general.

Genesis 2:18; 3:16; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18; I Corinthians 11:3; 14:34; I Timothy 2:12-14; 3:4,12; Titus 2:4,5; I Peter 3:1-7

B. Positions of Authority & Leadership in the Church Are Reserved for Men.
Apostles were all men - Acts 1:13.

Elders, who oversee the local church (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3), must be men - 1 Timothy 3:1,2; Titus 1:5,6.

C. Women Are Subject to Men in Spiritual Teaching.
Women are expressly forbidden to take a leading role over men in the church or in any circumstance of teaching God's word.

1 Timothy 2:11-14 - Women are subject to men in spiritual teaching situations.
V13,14 give two reasons for women's subjection to man.

V13 - First, man was formed before woman. This refers to the creation account of Gen. 2:18ff. See also 1 Cor. 11:3,8,9.

Woman was created from the beginning to be a helper or companion to man, not a leader or authority figure over him. Man was created with the position of leader and his nature suits that position.

V14 - Man has the leadership role because, though both Adam and Eve sinned, the woman was deceived where man was not. Both man and woman were punished, but God made the punishment fit the sin.

Eve tried to take the leadership role and made a decision to disobey God without consulting her husband. She allowed herself to be deceived and made a colossal blunder, so God required that she would always be subject to her husband (Gen. 3:16). Her punishment reminds her that she left her role of subjection. Man was punished just as severely, but in a different way.

1 Corinthians 14:34,35 - Women are to be silent in the assemblies of the church.
V34 says women must keep silence "in the churches." V35 says it is shameful for them to speak "in the church." The context defines "silence" to mean not speaking, not even to ask a question.

The context shows that "in the church" refers to the public worship assembly in which the church is called together to sing and pray (v15) and be edified (v26). The church is gathered together in congregation as a body. See v23,26 (cf. v4,5,12,19,28,33,34,35). Compare the similar usage in 1 Cor. 11:17-34 regarding the assemblies in which the Lord's supper was offered (cf. v17,18,20,33).

http://www.gospelway.com/teaching/women_preachers.php

If god/Jesus is such an equal opportunity employer then why weren't any of the disciples women?

Let em Go.

Lobiests in religion sounds wrong.

Love Omnaka

There are reasons to believe that women were among the disciples.

Traditionalism over progress. Stupid. Its reasons like this why the church alienates people. Is it not supposed to be about love? Well, equality, then, would be a good start. Jesus would probably be appalled lol

Tell them to shut the door on there way out !!!!

And maybe they should learn from that. From my interest into the Tudor dynasty, Henry did that, because of him wanting a divorce from wife number one to wife number two, so he can have a son. For one, he didn't like what the Papal church told him he couldn't do, so he created a church with him as the leader, and now clergy are aghast, because they do not want to break tradition? I find that interesting. Well, maybe it's just how it is now, then it was then, thinking women were only good as property and baby makers, and cannot see them in the leadership position. Oh wait a minute, Queen Mary the first, and Queen Elizabeth the first, who ruled for 45 years, as I understand from certain texts. If Henry only knew..............!

Speaking of which, isn't Queen Elizabeth the second, the currant leader of the English church? How does she feel about women in religious leadership positions?

I've known about this debate for quite some time now (though I attend an Anglican Church, I am not "Anglican" - we simply call ourselves "Christian" - Anglicanism does not consider itself the sole authority on the word of God). There's been a great deal of discussion about it at Church, and it seems that Australians in particular are against the proposal. If it does go ahead, there is a very real possibility that the Australian branch of the Anglican system will branch off on its own and sever ties with the Church of England. Much will become clearer after the Lambeth Conference.

I bet the alter boys are all for this.... finally some females to abuse us !!!

I find you utterly fascinating.

^And I find the overtones quite distateful. I know it's fun, perhaps even "commonality" to blame clergy for sexual crimes against kids, but if you look at the statistics, per capita (that means % of said profession wise) School Teachers and Youth Workers are more likely to be accused of sexual act tahn priests (regardless of denomination).

While I do see the humour (at least the intent of humour) in the post, I find the overall concept gross. Especially considering that regardless of whether it is male or female, and let's for the sake of argument say it is female, it is still pedophilia - is it any more appropriate since it's the opposite sex

Just a thought or ten to consider,

A power struggle is all this is.

I don't accept the fact that God favors one specific sex or race over another. I would never do anything violent to protest but I refuse to keep my mouth shut when some old fart implies I have less spiritual capacity than half the human race because of my sexual anatomy.

Although that I am aware of the sitatuations of the clergy and pedophilia, (and I'm the first to violent against it), being secular, I really didn't have that idea. I was thinking something else, that dealt with adults. If it was meaning something to what you were explaining Paranoid Android, I really had no idea. I thought everquesterinman meant something else, I swear. ANd yes, I'm that idiotic.

I thought it was Funny too.
Bad huh?

Love Omnaka

I don't accept that God favours one specific sex either, but the job of the pastor was biblically given to men alone. That does not imply women are inferior, just that there are different roles we play in the life of the Church. It certainly doesn't imply that women have "less spiritual capacity" than men. They are just different roles which are carried out. Women can still do many things in the church, and indeed do play an integral role in the running of the Church. But I stand by biblical values on the topic of pastoral care. I certainly don't see women as inferior or less spiritual.

And yes, I know I'm probably going to be slammed for this belief, so I'm bracing for the impact now, putting on my flame-proof jacket and fire-resistant clothing, and closing the door on my lead-lined box.

Yes PA, You are a Shovenist pig, (Just Kidding)
God never set it up that way, Man did, and the mother of every man makes her just as Important! God bless The Mothers!/ Women and Priestess. God bles Mother.



Love Omnaka

In the words of the human torch...Flame On!

If women have the same 'spiritual capacity' as men then why can't they be pastors or priests? Because God said so? Why would he say so? "Biblical values"? What values are to be had in segregation? A rule only relevant to the times? A rule put in afterwards by the male authors??

In truth we know that women are just as capable of being a pastor as a male is...so what reason would God have to only allow men to take the job? In that day men were in charge of everything and I believe God only allowed men to lead the church because allowing women to do so in that time may have caused civil unrest, or men may not have listened or took the women priests seriously. Since this mostly doesn't happen anymore I think the rule is irrelevant in this day and age where men and women are viewed as equals.

I think there are a couple other rules in the bible that are no longer followed because they are viewed as irrelevant so I don't see why this is such a big deal.

This event isn't one of religion or spirituality but of a pure power struggle.

The crux of the problem is that I don't accept the Bible as a divine thing that fell straight from heaven. Perhaps it was INSPIRED by the Deity but it was written by men who were saturated with the standard prejudices of their time (the Bronze Age). It strikes me as ridiculous to enshrine social prejudice along with the inspirational stuff. It is also ridiculous to think that the men who wrote the Bible somehow escaped the prejudices of everyone around them.

Time changes *everything*... Why should women be deemed less equal/qualified then men? New traditions can be quite acceptable...except, it seems, when it comes to men having to equalize/share their relationship with god and church. Time to step into the 21st century...the archaic ways are far too sexist for this day and age.

Read the bible of the God you claim to love, God tells you to be in subjection unto your husbands just as the church is under subjection of Christ. Following that pattern only males have leadership roles in the church not females. For Adam was made first and then the woman, and the woman was the first decieved.

If the greatest woman of all time Mother Mary followed the word of God, accepted this, and understood that by God's law she couldn't be a priest or bishop what makes you think you or any other woman should be? Show respect to the Christian elders of old and to God. I'm not trying to be mean, but you should really learn you own religion. WFTL read ephesians chapter 5 and timothy chapters 2 and 3.

And I'd just like to say jolly show old chaps! To the clergy in britian, we need more clergy like them in all the sects of christianity.

I agree with this. Woman get hormonal and tempermental when it is "ladies day" and we just don't need that kind of irrational behavior in the clergy.

Perhaps that is the crux of the problem then. Chrsitainity might just not be for you, then. No one is forcing it on you.

(1) Actually, that's not true. When people vote to bring the world of their religion into politics they ARE forcing it on me. They want to pass laws that I will have to obey. Laws based on their religion.

(2) Obviously, everyone has to find a belief that rings true to them, but I don't believe that accepting Christianity is necessarily contrary to believing that women and men should be equals in worship.

Everyone regardless of their beliefs are allowed to participate in the political process if living in a democracy or republic. If the Bible is not for you, the churches that follow them are not for you, then you really have no vote other than mildly complaining, without any merit might I add, of how those organizations are set up. Some would rather just complain but seriously in those churches that do things other ways or groups that are against the Bible that meet I have no voice in their groups much less in a church down the block I do not attend.

The problem with your statement about MY statement is this. Teachers have not taken a VOW stating they will not have sex...Teachers do NOT push they're weak moral beliefs on the young children they teach AND THEN ABUSE THEM....teachers DO NOT proclaim to be the gateway to the alimight himself and THEN hide they're TRUE evil nature behind closed doors....BUT THE CLERGY DO !!!!. I will admit that WE DO NEED a more detailed method for allowing who or whom teaches or children (maybe the interviewing process should be more intense) or maybe they should PAY teacher more to attract "better" peoepl to teach BUT sadly THE SUBJECT FOR THIS FORUM IS THE CLERGY....and I believe they have been screwing the poeple for years..and if folks aloow their children to go to them then YES they will screw them to. and they call it the HOUSE OF GOD !! sounds more like the HOUSE OF MICHAEL JACKSON TO ME

by Omnaka:

*Shrugs* I'm sincerely hoping Paranoid Android forgives me. Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought differently.

by Paranoid Android:

You may get slammed by other women, but for me, I have a different take as a secular raised individual. I am also a feminist. The thing is, it is believed we have a right to what belief or non-belief we hold. I am aware how separitist and condescending and demeaning women are placed in various religions. I just think that women should have the right to leave it. I know, it's not the right answer, but to me, it is. You may hold these beliefs and uphold the feelings within these beliefs, and I say more power to you. I'm not in your religion, so I don't feel bad about not raising to these positions, because I don't see myself in any positions in this field. It's when it's practiced out in the secular environment, than I feel I will be upraged. Until then, hey, it's your religion.

I'm not in America. Take it up with your local government. My country is much more secular than yours. While I appreciate your social position based on where you live is different from mine, I was speaking from my point of view, just as you are replying from yours. As far as I am aware, there is no law in Australian government currently being tabled to discuss bibilcal values.

I don't believe that either. Both men and women ARE equal. They just have different roles to play with the church community. The Pastor (overseer) is not "more important" than others, indeed he is the Primary Servant, the least of us (though modern church sometimes make them out to be somehow more spiritual than others. BIblically this is not so.

I do see your point of view, and I'm sure you see my comment that "men and women are all equal but just have different roles" as a rationalisation to keep man in dominance and women as inferior. I'm just saying how it is from my point of view, and more importantly, from the Bible's point of view.

~ PA

But the problem with your statement about my statement is this: Statistically, doctors and teachers are more likely to abuse children than members of the clergy. As a school teacher (yes, I am a School Teacher), we have a "duty of care", outlined in pages of documents that we MUST follow and obey or else face dismissal. These are similar to the vows that priests take. But teachers are far more likely to break those rules than clergy are. I am certain the doctors have something similar also (the hippocratic oath comes to mind, but I'm sure there's a more detailed document for them). But more doctors than clergy ignore their vows.

I understand your view, but I think it is wrong to focus solely on the clergy, since their profession is (statistically speaking) one of the lowest rates of all professions that deal with children. And it is certainly distasteful to make a comment that women clergy will simply mean that the altar-boys will now get raped by women instead of by men

I think I might see your point of view- tradition adds depth and richness to faith and obedience to the Bible is one of the acts by which you say that the Church is more important than your personal ego stuff. An exercise in "not my will but thine be done". At least that's the best I can do at trying to understand your view.

My position (which I know you don't agree with):

I see "men and women are all equal but just have different roles" as an anachronism dating back to the time when women were continuously pregnant or nursing (i.e.- more at the mercy of their reproductive systems than men were) and it wasn't practical for them to occupy top positions in their religious communities. That's not true any more. Now we have reliable birth control, prenatal care, etc. So women have been freed up to do things they couldn't do before.

There's a lot of stuff in the Bible that's really practical folk knowledge about how to run a successful community in the Bronze Age Middle East. For example, Leviticus says you have to bury a body immediately after a person dies. That made sense- they didn't have embalming or refrigeration and they lived in a hot climate. It was a health issue. Now they can store the deceased in a sanitary manner if his/her relatives are traveling from across the world to attend the funeral. So they can wait to bury the body. To me, this change in technology changes the meaningof that passage in Leviticus to "do everything possible to maintain health and sanitation in your community".

The rules concerning women are similar in that they're antiquated. But they are more harmful than the burial laws because they limit the lives of women needlessly. Religion needs to relate to the technological realities of their congregations' lives.

------------------------------------------

I don't think that you personally want to subjugate women when you write "men and women are all equal but just have different roles" , but that rationality has been misused so badly in so many instances that I don't think we humans are capable of using it correctly.

Update - Click Here

It might also be worth noting that the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, plus quite a few other bishops have chosen to "boycott" this Council and hold their own version of the "Lembath Council" in Jerusalem (something that didn't go down too well with the Arch-bishop in Jerusalem, who is keen on keeping peace with the majority in Canterbury). this protest is over the ordination of gay priests, and dare i say it, considering the new addition to the ledger of ordination of women, I can foresee a great upheaval in the Anglican/Church of England system sometime in the very near future. Expect turmoil in the next month or so.......

How many church of england clergymen does it take to change a light bulb.

Change, Change, Change.

You give them the vote.........................Pankhurst should have been strung up.