The Political Asylum

Vintage Girl

From The Times April 29, 2008

‘Gender havens’ to avert split in Church
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
Read Ruth Gledhill's blog on women bishops

The Church of England is proposing to tear up hundreds of years of tradition by establishing spiritual havens for opponents of women priests and bishops.

In a desperate attempt to stave off a schism over female ordination, church leaders have suggested the creation of new dioceses based on gender rather than geography.

The proposal – allowing some parishes to flee from the prospect of women bishops to male bishops hundreds of miles away – is one idea intended to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion amid intense anger among millions of conservative church members.

But it risks antagonising liberals who believe that Anglicanism should not offer a compromise.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3835710.ece

Is this the way forward for the Church of England or is it wrong to compromise?

I believe that the Church should not compromise on this issue. This is not something one can sit on the fence about. Either they believe in the ordination of women or they don't and, either way, they should stand by the courage of their convictions.
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

Vintage Girl · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject:

I think that is an acceptable argument???? Shocked

_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

You've lost me. What is an acceptable argument? That the church can pick and choose which bits of its own scriptures can be ignored whilst rigidly ahering to other bits? Confused

Vintage Girl · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:39 pm Post subject:

Sorry, I meant your argument....I was having trouble following all the 'acceptables' and 'unacceptables'. Laughing

_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

BlueEmperor · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject:

I for one hope that the Church hierarchy will show leadership on this issue. The ordination of women has been the settled will of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion for many years now, failing to see any justification - scriptural or otherwise - for perpetuating the anachronism of an exclusively male clergy.

To pander to those dinosaurs who still insist on subscribing to this theologically untenable position would be a retrograde step. The Church of England has been ordaining female clergy for some time now. It is positively daft, therefore, to bar them from episcopal office. I have always regarded the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to women priests as one of that church's massive failings. It would pain me to see the Anglican Church legitimise that position by creating separate jurisdictions within the Church of England and essentially saying that some Anglicans will have special dispensation, allowing them to refuse to recognise the episcopal authority of a legitimately ordained bishop!

We should be encouraging women into ministry and so should the Roman Catholics too! The Roman Catholics are in an even more precarious position than we Anglicans are, because of the shocking shortage of priests. Even in Ireland, which from the early Dark Ages has sent young, enthusiastic priests as pastors and missionaries all over the world, only NINE priests were ordained last year. Increasingly, in both our churches, we are seeing the gaps being filled by immigrant priests and clergymen from Africa, Asia and Latin America - invariably Evangelicals, which grates with me. Moreover, it strikes me as somewhat obscene that such distant communities, with severe problems of their own, have to send their able and eager young pastors to Europe merely because young Christians in Europe are too selfish and spoiled and materialistic to serve the Faith (myself included). It is a scandal made worse by the fact that thousands of devoted and industrious Christian women, many of whom are already serving within the Anglican clergy or as nuns in the Roman Catholic Church, or in secular life, are ready to devote their lives to Christ but are denied the chance to serve in the upper ranks of the Anglican clergy and denied entry to the Roman Catholic priesthood altogether.

I have never seen the slightest justification for rejection of female clergy. From my point of view, the arguments are as wafer-thin as those - employed by the Roman Catholic Church - in defence of priestly celibacy. The idea that half the human race are ineligible for priestly life simply because of their gender is wrong in theory and practice, obstinately obscurantist and blind, cruel and self-destructive. I feel sure that even the Vatican will see that in time, so it would be absolutely monstrous for the Church of England to start taking steps backwards now.

B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in!

wakeyboy · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject:

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

Vintage Girl · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject:

Do you have any examples to illustrate your argument?
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

Yes - there's possibly the most part of Leviticus which is neither here nor there in today's society in the eyes of the church - tatoos, piercings, general shaving of beards etc... but heaven forbid homosexuality - all of the aforementioned are as bad as each other according to leviticus - yet the homo part of leviticus is all that remains upheld by the church. If you've never read Leviticus, have a read at it - it's very enlightning re what's not allowed under it but is very everyday stuff that is just run of the mill these days that nobody bats an eyelid about, yet the church won't let go of the homo bit. I can't give you a better example than that.

Vintage Girl · Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:53 pm Post subject:

I shall try to read Leviticus to see what you mean.
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

wakeyboy · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 12:39 am Post subject:

Yes there are all sorts of things condemned as abominations in Leviticus, things like sexual conduct to whether you shave or wear mixed fibre clothes!

All of it is to do with jewish purity laws for Rabbis.
_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

yes, most of it is just ridiculous. I'm sure eating shellfish is another that'll see you off to the bad fire. Laughing

The one forbidding women priests is this passage in the first Letter to the Corinthians by the apostle Paul: “Women should be silent in the church because it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be subject as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Cor 14, 34.35)

It's also in dispute over whether or not paul could have actually written that and there's a theory that that was actually written in at some later point, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

SilverMiniCooperS · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 195

Vintage Girl · Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject:

Spandex would be an abomination in any religion. Twisted Evil

_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected!

kitchenwitch · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject:

I would think deliberately seperating genders within the church would cause a bigger schism than taking a stance and continue to allow women to be priests.

BlueEmperor · Posted: Fri May 02, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject:

Sticking to the issue of why the Church should remain bullish on this, is how patently absurd it is. Never mind Leviticus. The main reason I consistently hear advanced for blocking the ordination of women is that Christ chose to appoint only male apostles! He also appointed only circumsized Orthodox Jews. I think we can assume that is no longer a requirement!

Of course, that in itself would be an inadequate argument in any case, for while conditions and customs in the 1st-Century AD might go some way to justify such an invidious distinction, that is no reason to prolong it into modern times! There is absolutely no reason to suppose Jesus imposed any ban on women. On the contrary, what ought to strike any impartial reader of the Gospels is the large role played by women in Our Lord's ministry. Christ took great trouble to instruct, argue with and administer to women. What is also highly noticable is the devotion they showed to Him and the evident value He placed on it. But, contrary to the impression given by Merek's oblique references to Leviticus, women also feature prominently in the Old Testament - often playing key roles. Indeed, that is one of the distinctive characteristics of the Bible, marking it out from most of the rest of ancient Near East literature.

There is nothing in the story of the Hebrews to parallel the way in which Our Lord used women in His work, the respect He showed them, the delight He took in their collegiality with Him, and their daily prominence in His company. This increased as he neared His tragic end as man and His triumphant resurrection as the Son of God. Certainly, from my reading of Bible, the Gospels seem to hint strongly that the women in Jesus' entourage behaved with far greater courage than did the men during the Passion. None of them denied him, unlike St Peter (who did it three times). The women clustered round the Cross to the bitter end, and they were the first to visit Christ's tomb. And lest we forget, St Mary Magdalen was the first to witness the Risen Jesus and on whom He bestowed the distinction of announcing the good news to the other disciples.

B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in!

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

not sure if you missed this BE, but it's this that is latched onto as the argument for not allowing woman priests:

first Letter to the Corinthians by the apostle Paul: “Women should be silent in the church because it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be subject as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Cor 14, 34.35)

wakeyboy · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject:

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

such is the way of it. And not only that, but remember - these things have been transcribed as well... with bits and pieces 'mistranscribed' to suit.

wakeyboy · Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject:

BlueEmperor · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:10 am Post subject:

wakeyboy · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:50 am Post subject:

Roman Catholic women priests...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrn-rmHpPQ

They consider themselves post-Vatican II Roman Catholics, but as far as the Vatican is considered they are a schismatic group and have been excommunicated.
_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

BlueEmperor · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject:

RCWP are a particularly difficult group for the Vatican, as not only do they touch upon the ordination of women, they also openly ordain married priests (touching upon priestly celibacy), divorcees and homosexuals. It is understandable, therefore, that a group so openly schismatic have been excommunicated.

Their insistance that they are operating 'within the Roman Catholic Church' is pretty fanciful. They have some legitimate claim to apostolic succession - being descended from the so-called 'Danube Seven', a group of women who were ordained by an Argentine 'Independent' Catholic bishop.

Bishop Braschi's orders are recognised as 'valid' by the Vatican but are regarded as 'illicit'. All seven women were excommunicated for contravening Canon Law and all participants in RCWP suffer latae sententiae excommunication.

It is a shame because in a sane world all of these women would be hard-working Roman Catholic priests.

B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in!

adrien · Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject:

I agree. All religions have had hard time realising that part of their sacred text are, as Blue said, inspired by local customs that were the law in the time and place where these texts have been written. It's high time the Churches accept women's priesthood and priest marriage, I think. (Though as an agnostic I don't really feel directly concerned...)
_________________
Sit on the banks of the river and wait for the corpse of your enemy. - Indian proverb.

Merak · Inmate of the Asylum Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 214

BlueEmperor · Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:34 pm Post subject:

I do think that this is an internal church matter because we're talking about the structure of the Church of England hierarchy.

As I have said, women's ordination is something I feel quite strongly about. Without wishing to sound as though I am channeling Dan Brown, I think it is incredible how the role of St Mary Magdalen is often obscured. Of all Christ's followers, St Mary Magdalen seems to have been the closest to him, the most devoted and the most 'apostolic'. I use that word carefully. The very word 'apostle' means 'messenger of spiritual tidings' and, in this sense, St Mary Magdalen was - in my opinion - a true apostle, indeed the first of the apostles. And Dan Brown and I aren't the first to think this way. Even denizens of the early Church, such as the 3rd-Century Roman martyr Bishop Hippolytus gave St Mary Magdalen the honorific title apostola apostolorum ('apostle to the apostles') - a title it was said had been originally bestowed upon her by the Risen Christ. While the Gospel of St Luke, presenting the viewpoint of St Peter, played down the role of St Mary Magdalen, Ss Matthew and Mark gave her unique importance, especially in the Resurrection story. Chapter 20 of the Gospel of St John is largely devoted to her activities at the tomb and afterwards.

Her stories are, for me, some of the most memorable from my reading of the Bible: washing Our Lord's feet with tears of repentance, drying them with her abundant hair and anointing them with precious ointment (to the objection of some of Christ's male apostles but with His approval!); standing beneath the cross throughout Christ's Agony; her presence at His burial and tending to the tomb after His death. St Mary Magdalen was the first person to witness the Risen Christ. It was on her that Jesus bestowed the distinction of announcing the Good News to the other disciples. Not only, therefore, was St Mary Magdalen the first to witness the central tenet of our faith - the Resurrection - but she also received the unique privilege to be the first to announce it. It seems impossible to me to think of anyone in Christendom more entitled to bear the honorific 'Apostle'.

B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in!

adrien · Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject:

To answer Merak, I think in some sense it's reassuring to see the church follow medievalesque, blatantly sexist rules. The part of me that is fondly anti-religious is quite happy to see them cling to their outdated traditions, thus marginalising themselves a little more. Wink

More seriously, if I'd though those who oppose women's priesthood had a strong influence over society, or even inside their own community, I'd probably oppose them. The fact that it is an internal church matter does not really justify that we let them discriminate against women. But as long as they seem to be minority, or at least strongly objected inside their community, I'm happy to let progressive christians settle the matter. I'm very glad there are people like Blue to show a better image of their faith, and I'd like to see catholics - who are majority in France - folow this lead.
_________________
Sit on the banks of the river and wait for the corpse of your enemy. - Indian proverb.

BlueEmperor · Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject:

Well, I do thank you for that. It's not often that my religious faith has been deemed an asset in the course of debates on internet forums. It is a refreshing change.

B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in!

wakeyboy · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject:

Australia appoints its first female bishop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7414979.stm

Australia's first woman bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, has been consecrated in St George's Cathedral in Perth.
The move has been welcomed by Australia's sex discrimination commissioner as a turning point for the church and the nation.

But a minority of Australian Anglicans, angered by the appointment, have warned that it will split the church.

Twenty-one Anglican bishops from Australia and New Zealand were among a congregation of more than 800 to show their support for Kay Goldsworthy's controversial appointment.

Opponents of the ordination of women, including the head of the Sydney diocese, Archbishop Peter Jensen, did not attend the ceremony.

The Bishop of Northwest Australia, David Mulready, was also absent from the service.

Bishop Mulready has said he will not permit Bishop Goldsworthy to officiate in his diocese.

Australia's Anglican bishops have agreed that parishes that cannot in good conscience recognise the ministry of a woman bishop will be offered the services of a male bishop.

Australia's federal sex discrimination commissioner has described Bishop Goldsworthy's appointment as a "turning point for the church and the nation as a whole," and placed it alongside other recent "feminist firsts".

The BBC's Nick Bryant in Sydney says that women in Australia still find it difficult to penetrate the upper echelons of politics, business and society.

Bishop Goldsworthy, 51, is married and has two sons. She has said she is unlikely to feel offended by parishes not accepting her ministry, having faced criticism over the years.

"I've travelled a path where there's always been someone or some group that doesn't agree or doesn't want to receive your ministry, so I won't feel slighted," she said last month.
_________________
http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/

JuanaLaLoca · Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: