I do hope that the Church of England isn´t going to tear itself apart in an undignified way over gay clergy or woman bishops, although, sadly, that looks increasingly likely. I do still have a great deal of affection for the Church in which I was raised and the current wrangling is hard to watch.
One of the things I always liked about the Church was its tolerance and understanding and I hope that these qualities shine through as they debate these issues.
I do have one simple observation about woman bishops, though. The argument against them is that Jesus only chose men as disciples. In those days, most women were subject to the will of either their husband or their father and would simply not have been permitted to disappear off with some male stranger. I am sure that the opponents of women bishops would not wish to return to that sort of world, so I´d be interested to see how they would answer that point.
1 comment:
As a Catholic, but one who supports women priests (at all levels - if they can have a vocation to priesthood they can have just as strong a vocation to leadership within the church). the way Rome puts it is that, being divine and above all the petty conventions of daily life in first century Palestine he *could* have chosen women but didn't.
Of course I believe this is utter bollocks anyway - it seems clear that the Magdalen was a disciple, even known as the "Apostle to the Apostles" because she was chosen to be the person to whom the resurrection was revealed. It also seems clear that frecos and paintings in the catacombs show women officiating at services.
Post a Comment