Women Bishops
(BBC Online)
Following the recent developments on the possibility of women bishops in the Church of England, I should have mentioned this earlier this week, but like a no of 'That's a good idea, I'll put it in my blog' ideas that occur to you at random, I didn't get around to it until this morning.
And it isn't a bad thing because it's one of those issues which I feel people need to be reflective on. I mean I could say outright my core belief in this, which is 'I agree with Women Bishops', but it's an emotive issue and I want to explain why in some small detail, in case I get misunderstood.
Put basically I feel that if women priests are okay, then why not women bishops! If having women bishops are wrong, then why are we having women priests? To be emotive first of all, I don't see why we shouldn't have them as women do just as good a job as men, and in some ways women do a better job at pastoral care. Just as some men may not feel comfortable at going to a woman priest regarding a personal matter, it is the same with women going to a male priest!
But of course it isn't what you or I want that is important, it is what God wants, and God knows best! That's a fair point, although speaking as a nonconformist, it depends on how one sees the Church and (and this is a point which divides evangelicals, fundamentalists and liberals right down the denominational board) it depends on how one views scripture!
For me it is simple! Do you regard a Church as a gathering of believers? If so, then how can one be against women priests when the first person to proclaim the gospel was a woman! (For those puzzled I am refering to Mary Magdalene proclaiming that Christ rose from the dead to the disciples)
With regards to the Anglican/Roman Catholic/Orthodox Churches the dilemma is more pronounced. There is not an emphasis on a priesthood of all believers, Christ was a male, so the priests in presiding the Eucharist and other altar work are doing the work of Christ and therefore 'have to be male', and they are there to represent the mission of Christ for the Church, which is seen as the bride of Christ. This is not to downgrade the work of women in their eyes, it simply enacting symbolism within the body of Christ. Not only that, but there has been an apostolic line of succession, unbroken, of men in the ministry and breaking against centuries of tradition can be very frightening.
But the problem arises when that symbolism is firmly believed to the extent of causing blindness and distress towards all concerned.
I can see the traditionalists point, I myself was against women priests in my late teens. To me, I could not understand why there was a clamour for it when St Paul spoke against women priests, when I failed to understand what the body of Christ means and in failing to understand St Paul's comments in context and within other passages of scripture.
So I can see where the opposition are coming from, I can sympathise with their distress and hurt that they feel that some of the core certainties that helped protect them are ebbing away. The problem is more particular in anglicanism because it is one of the largest denominations on the planet and works as a middle way for Christians of varying theological beliefs, but at the end of the day all Christians must ask hard questions, such as 1)Are my theological beliefs causing needless harm and distress to others? 2)Am I constantly revaluating and questioning my beliefs? 3)Am I seperating my convictions from my attitudes? (very important) and 4)Am I loving my neighbour?
I can also see a divergence of attitude and opinion on both sides and that is cause for hope, as it means that one can perhaps talk more about this without seeing the opposition as 'the enemy that is out to wreck it all!'
Following the recent developments on the possibility of women bishops in the Church of England, I should have mentioned this earlier this week, but like a no of 'That's a good idea, I'll put it in my blog' ideas that occur to you at random, I didn't get around to it until this morning.
And it isn't a bad thing because it's one of those issues which I feel people need to be reflective on. I mean I could say outright my core belief in this, which is 'I agree with Women Bishops', but it's an emotive issue and I want to explain why in some small detail, in case I get misunderstood.
Put basically I feel that if women priests are okay, then why not women bishops! If having women bishops are wrong, then why are we having women priests? To be emotive first of all, I don't see why we shouldn't have them as women do just as good a job as men, and in some ways women do a better job at pastoral care. Just as some men may not feel comfortable at going to a woman priest regarding a personal matter, it is the same with women going to a male priest!
But of course it isn't what you or I want that is important, it is what God wants, and God knows best! That's a fair point, although speaking as a nonconformist, it depends on how one sees the Church and (and this is a point which divides evangelicals, fundamentalists and liberals right down the denominational board) it depends on how one views scripture!
For me it is simple! Do you regard a Church as a gathering of believers? If so, then how can one be against women priests when the first person to proclaim the gospel was a woman! (For those puzzled I am refering to Mary Magdalene proclaiming that Christ rose from the dead to the disciples)
With regards to the Anglican/Roman Catholic/Orthodox Churches the dilemma is more pronounced. There is not an emphasis on a priesthood of all believers, Christ was a male, so the priests in presiding the Eucharist and other altar work are doing the work of Christ and therefore 'have to be male', and they are there to represent the mission of Christ for the Church, which is seen as the bride of Christ. This is not to downgrade the work of women in their eyes, it simply enacting symbolism within the body of Christ. Not only that, but there has been an apostolic line of succession, unbroken, of men in the ministry and breaking against centuries of tradition can be very frightening.
But the problem arises when that symbolism is firmly believed to the extent of causing blindness and distress towards all concerned.
I can see the traditionalists point, I myself was against women priests in my late teens. To me, I could not understand why there was a clamour for it when St Paul spoke against women priests, when I failed to understand what the body of Christ means and in failing to understand St Paul's comments in context and within other passages of scripture.
So I can see where the opposition are coming from, I can sympathise with their distress and hurt that they feel that some of the core certainties that helped protect them are ebbing away. The problem is more particular in anglicanism because it is one of the largest denominations on the planet and works as a middle way for Christians of varying theological beliefs, but at the end of the day all Christians must ask hard questions, such as 1)Are my theological beliefs causing needless harm and distress to others? 2)Am I constantly revaluating and questioning my beliefs? 3)Am I seperating my convictions from my attitudes? (very important) and 4)Am I loving my neighbour?
I can also see a divergence of attitude and opinion on both sides and that is cause for hope, as it means that one can perhaps talk more about this without seeing the opposition as 'the enemy that is out to wreck it all!'
posted by Paul Burgin at 9:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home