"Religious right" Charlatans continue to blame Easter Bunny for VT shootings

Hey, this is 18 months old, but still worth a read. Bearing in mind I call myself evangelical - but it's spot on.

Women Bishops – a strategic dead end?

This post has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of women bishops per se. It asks if this strategy is a dead end for the church.

I think that the ordination of women makes the church more attractive to women. But a quick look around our predominantly female congregations tells us that attracting women is not and never has been the problem. We will not see a sudden influx of feminists saying ‘now that you ordain women bishops we’ll join’

The problem for the church is the lack of men.

And without men, the church will die. “In the Lord, man is not independent of woman and woman is not independent of man”. Do we want the Church of England to be Women’s Institute MkII?

I think it is fairly well established that the main reason men don’t attend church is that they see it as soft and sissy. It is too feminine. The men that are in church are dressed in frocks. In order to attract men, the church needs more testosterone. It needs to be more manly. Will women bishops make it more manly? Our survey said XX.

Women Bishops a reality

So the Synod of the Church of England has voted.

I am broadly, but cautiously, in favour of women bishops. But I really don’t like the way it has been done.

Regarding the basic theology:

In favour:

• It is illogical to have women vicars but not women bishops.
• In history women have always been domestic, and it is only in the modern western world that this question has been asked, and hence it is only now that we have reviewed scripture on the topic. So just becasue it has not been done traditionally does not mean it should not be done.
• Christ opposes discrimination and broke the social taboos of his day to elevate women.
• Peter (and the church) was given authority to 'bind and loose'

Against:

• “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” – this verse has never been satisfactorily answered.
• The doctrine of ‘one flesh’ and many other verses in the Bible indicate that while the genders have equal status, they have different roles. Especially where these are roles that symbolise the relationship between Christ and the Church.
  
• (I reject the idea that a woman cannot represent Christ as president at the eucharist. We are both made in the image of God.)

Regarding the politics:

• It has been done politically, rather than spiritually.
• The baying angry women campaigners are NOT the women I would choose to be bishops (there are many women I know who would do the job well, but not these ones). They have not shown Christian love towards the traditionalists, they have shown only a worldly thirst for power. They have not sought a genuine compromise in the inclusive spirit of the Catholic and Protestant Church of England. They have sought to exclude the traditionalists. And in driving them out, they impoverish the church. How is this an example of peacemaking to the world?
• If the liberals had been willing to accept a system of separate structure of male bishops for those that want them, they would have had women bishops years ago. So they can’t even manage their own strategy, yet they want to run the church?

So, it is something approaching the right outcome, but it was definitely done in a shameful manner and the women should have had the basic Christian grace to make more generous concessions to people with different convictions to themselves.