Time To Change?

Posted by Jeff 20 Jul 2010 at 22:27

Most arguments against female leadership make about as much sense as these ones against male leadership:
church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/03/10-reasons-men-should-not-be-pastors.html

Posted by pearla 20 Jul 2010 at 22:31

Daff are you having a laugh.....are you serious? Why should ALL Bishops be women, is that equality? Why are there so few men in the church (if that is true, it's not at my RL church). What is wrong with male leadership? What is wrong with equal sharing, if men can't work with women or indeed women with men....there is something wrong surely.
I thought the Anglican's had it just about right, in that if a man couldn't bring himself to work 'under' or with a female lead, then they were sent to a parish which accepted male leaders and the females to parishes where females were welcomed.
As for single parent families, there are way too many of them in English society, I am told that 1 in 3 families now split and have step fathers or mothers or boyfriends or girlfriends.
What effect does this have on the younger generation? Isn't the church supposed to be counter-culture not 'move in line with society'!
No, it wil never happen and it wouldn't work nor should it imo!

Posted by kailex 20 Jul 2010 at 23:18

Daff, " maybe it's time to ask how relevant male Bishops are? "

Maybe it's time to ask how relevant any Bishop is?

Posted by Jen 20 Jul 2010 at 23:22

Goodness me! I think the church should pull itself out of the 19th Century and start treating men and women as equals.
The Gospel of Christ is about freedom - what freedom is there in only allowing Men to hold certain posts in the church?

Posted by Daffodil 20 Jul 2010 at 23:49

pearla said
"I thought the Anglican's had it just about right, in that if a man couldn't bring himself to work 'under' or with a female lead, then they were sent to a parish which accepted male leaders and the females to parishes where females were welcomed.

Surely this is just a fudge, rather than something that is actually right?

Posted by PaulluaP 21 Jul 2010 at 01:10

Let's dispense of the dogma and allow people to contribute as individuals, rather than as whether thay are "male" or "female".

Posted by PaulluaP 21 Jul 2010 at 01:11

*they (g)

Posted by Vee 21 Jul 2010 at 09:47

A church without male bishops would be as one-sided as a church without female bishops. The population (except for small localised areas in India and China) is roughly half and half, why shouldn't the priesthood be allowed to be.

Posted by Daffodil 21 Jul 2010 at 11:11

Would women make better Bishops tho?

I loved the article Jeff linked to further up.

Posted by Vee 21 Jul 2010 at 11:54

Women would make different bishops, I do think men and women complement each other, so each would tend to bring complementary skills to the role.

Hmmm, tangent alert (not well though through): If marriage is ordained by God, perhaps we could consider, as it were, job share between married couples: more formally than we have at present, so the partner gets full recognition for the role they so frequently play.

Posted by Larch 21 Jul 2010 at 12:01

Classic!
My vote goes with the small person in the picture. She looks at least like someone who would do no harm, and whom Jesus would/does take into his arms and bless.
Dafflet for Archbishop!

Posted by sanderella 21 Jul 2010 at 12:19

Dafflet 4 as a bishop! Very nice!

I recently saw a film in which all the orchestra members were men. I thought how odd, why would they choose to do that? Then I remembered that women were not allowed to play in professional orchestras. Soon we will think it strange that Bishops were all men, when we get 'normalised' and have both.

Posted by dolphy 21 Jul 2010 at 12:37

I think this is a hard question to answer.

While I am very much a traditionalist, I have two very good women friends who are both ordained and working as Priests in Australia - they have my full support.

I have attended a local Church where the Vicar is a woman, and to be honest, I could not get along with her sermons etc at all. But, perhaps that was just because she is not a very approachable person and is very set in her ways of everything being black or white, no shades of grey at all.

However, as Jen says, it's about time we pulled ourselves out of the 19th Century.

Why should the Church be male dominated? Would more young people attend services if there was a female Vicar/Priest/Bishop?

On a lighter note, personally I would welcome women if they were as good as The Vicar of Dibley ;-)

I also vote for Daflet4!

Posted by justme 21 Jul 2010 at 12:52

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

Male or Female should not make a difference. Church leaders should be picked on who is best for the job, who can get the message across well, who can lead well, who can generate discipleship well, who has the emotional qualities needed. Never mind if that person (created in Gods own image) is male or female.

The squabbling annoys me, came across it when involved in the higher eschelons of a trade union in another time, it was always men at one stage who had top jobs, then slowly (still evolving) women were seen to be given some of the higher jobs, then it all seemed to go to pot and some of the women wanted equal numbers of women to men on every committee, that was, imho, a bad move because it saw people on various committees, that had the power to make changes that affected a lot of people, there just based on their sex not on their capabilities. Working in a male dominated work environment I was happy to be one of the lads, when I was a chairman the members could call me what they liked (if they were brave enough! and as long as it wasnt late for dinner!)
Maybe we have become too touchy and focused on gender rather than on choosing the best candidate for the job. If the Church started focusing on who was getting the good News out and giving ear to those out spreading the word of our Lord and getting results that might be a good indicator of suitability for the "job".

On a light hearted note (please!) Maybe the ladies could do the services and the redundant men could repair the many church rooves that need doing, Congregations buy the materials and hire the scaffolding from good retail outlets at special prices due to so many slates needed!!!!) and the men and strong women if they choose can get up and repair the buildings at a rate far cheaper than by using the traditional businesses! .... I'll get me coat >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :)

Posted by truthpaste 21 Jul 2010 at 12:57

Does anyone think God should have a view on this, or if He did, would He be behind our modern times and thinking?

Posted by kailex 21 Jul 2010 at 14:03

Yes - God would be behind our modern times and thinking.

Jesus appeared very modern to the Jews in the 1st century, turning upside down all they thought God meant and bringing the laws under which they lived up to date so attitude became more important than legalism.

We no longer live under OT laws such as, ""Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death." and I reckon God is 100% behind that modern trend.
He knew what was needed then and he knows what is needed now - hence the NT scriptures saying there is no male or female in His eyes but all are one.

(Galatians 3:28 (New International Version)
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.)

Posted by Explorer1 21 Jul 2010 at 14:14

More important than this question, possibly, is why should the church perpetuate the unbiblical idea of ordained/(under)paid leaders and lay (usually unpaid) staff? The only biblical model is for the people of God to recognise and set aside people for a task when it has been recognised they have a skill for it (usually because they are doing it already). If someone feels they want to try something, or have an aptitude for it, the church should encourage and enable. And when a task is finished or no longer needed, the church as a whole should move on, freeing the person back to another ("secular"?) post. The only place where this seems to happen is in missionary circles, where the idea of 'tentmaker' and 'short-term' positions is now quite common.

Failing that, the wholesale removal of most of the bishops to replace them with one over-arching position held by daflet4 sounds a good idea...

Posted by truthpaste 21 Jul 2010 at 14:55

Yes, responsibility by aptitude and observed fruits is a far better and Godly model. Too many appointed by man-made systems are destroying quality church growth.

Posted by pearla 21 Jul 2010 at 15:39

Daff said : Would women make better Bishops tho? No definitely not, as has been said! It depends as it equally should men, on aptitude, motivation, attitude and many other things besides!
A friend of mine - married to a parish priest for over 40 years (now widowed) said to me in conversation. Why are women causing such a fuss these days - in their parish days, men were priests for years and years, her husband was one for 40 years, why do women who have only been in the priesthood for 10 years, already have the 'ambition' to become bishops....nonsense. (her words!) tho' I do tend to agree.
They like the men, have to prove their worth, their calling and their ministry, that can take a lot longer than 10 years!

Posted by kailex 21 Jul 2010 at 16:03

I agree with TP - "Yes, responsibility by aptitude and observed fruits is a far better and Godly model."

But I do wonder how, in churches that do not let women teach in the main service, how aptitude can ever be observed?

Posted by Larch 21 Jul 2010 at 19:16

Just as a point of information, the first ordinations of women to the priesthood in the C of E were in 1994 - rather more than 10 years ago. And many of them had been ordained deacon several years before, and 'caught' in the transitional period so not able to be ordained priest. (There were 2000 deacons 'waiting' to be ordained when the legislation was passed in 1992). I know a woman who was ordained deacon 25 years ago (one of the earliest I believe).

Maybe Pearla they, (and, more importantly, others) do feel that there are women priests who have proved their calling and ministry in that quarter of a century. It's a big assumption that 'ambition' is their motivation. And in any case, at this stage, the debate isn't about any individuals, it's about where the church as a whole should be going.

Posted by pearla 21 Jul 2010 at 20:16

I shall have words with my friend she should really have known this :) or I should have looked at Wikipedia first :)

Where is the church going as a whole? Should it have nothing to do with the sex of the ordained? What if you belong to a tradition that forbids females being ordained and if you belong to that tradition you either accept it or leave/change and find another branch of the church, however if you do that, you may find something in the other tradition which doesn't suit.....so......

Saying that there is no male, no female (Galatians) that we're all one in Christ is a bit like saying a banana is an orange - to me! We are all one in Christ because of what He has done for us, but that doesn't detract from me being a female or make me sexless!

There must be a genuine desire to humbly be of service to the body of Christ and the community.

This is proven by years of a persons complete lifestyle inside and outside of church duties, commitments and hours. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20timothy%203&version=NIV - good, sound character, it's a high calling and demands high standards.

Posted by Pat 21 Jul 2010 at 21:12

I really can't see what all the fuss is about ...

I was very much against the ordination of women when the debate was raging. However, it was passed into law and women are now ordained. And I know some excellent ordained women. OK, women are now ordained priests. Therefore of course they should be permitted to become bishops. In their ministry they are not 'men' or 'women', but 'priests', and the same rules apply for all.

As for this nonsense about parishes opting out of serving under a woman bishop ... do I really have to respond to that? I don't think so!!

(By the way, to make my personal position absolutely clear, I am a Methodist now, but many years ago I was married to an Anglican priest. That was well before any talk of women being ordained, although we had the most wonderful Church Army lady working in our parish - probably one of the most spiritual people I have ever met. I am sure that, had the opportunity been there for her, she would have been ordained.)

Posted by justme 21 Jul 2010 at 23:27

apart from if a male sports a beard and moustache .. how does anyone know what gender is under all those robes and regalia?
Maybe Exp has a point too, in that does the Church really need all the top heavy regalia and costs when they could be so better spent helping those who have little, as Our Lord teaches us?

Maybe the men who wish to stay apart from the females should be wary that their protests might bring a complete change and trim down of the roles needed within the Church, after all everything else is being trimmed down and made more efficient why NOT the roles within Church life? Has anyone stats on running costs of bishops etc and if they are good value for money as they are or could an umbrella group doing the same work plus other duties be more efficient and user friendly?

Quote Pat "As for this nonsense about parishes opting out of serving under a woman bishop ... do I really have to respond to that? I don't think so!!"

Hear hear any response would probably be unchristian dare I suggest deservedly!

Posted by Yota 22 Jul 2010 at 02:30

No