From here:
Reforms to allow women to become bishops, which were expected to be approved by the Church of England this week after 12 years of bitter debate, are in disarray.
Some of the Church’s most senior female clergy have denounced the proposed legislation for giving their opponents concessions which they say would make them second-class citizens if they were made bishops.
A final vote on the historic measure, which would pave the way for women in mitres within two years, is the main item at the Church’s ‘Parliament’, the General Synod, which starts a five-day meeting in York on Friday.
What strikes me about the career ambitions of Church of England lady priests is not so much whether female bishops are theologically sound or not but this:
Anglican women priests eager for upward career mobility claim that their cause is one of justice, equality and rights. Justice demands that women have access to the same opportunities as men; equality between the sexes in the 21st century is an unassailable aphorism; everyone expects women – men, too, but particularly women – to stand up for their rights.
What child of the third millennium could possibly disagree?
Surely these potential lady bishops are simply fighting for what is right, doing “social justice” as Jesus would want them to. Or are they?
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Phil 2:5-8
I think the real problem with these ambitious lady priests is that they appear to view their calling as a secular career rather than a Christian vocation: they should not even be priests let alone bishops.
Presumably the thought behind this is that anyone who can be a priest can, in principle, be a bishop. You may think women can be neither: I think they can be both.
However, allowing women to be priests but not bishops just seems inconsistent.
Perhaps, in this need for equality between the sexes, both in the current standards of the secular world, and within the our Lord’s Kingdom, (where already there is no discrimination between His children),a fine solution would be to eliminate completely the hierarchical structure of the church. All would be servants of Christ Jesus, and their fellow man, all the same in the eyes of our Lord. Christ Jesus wore no earthly crown nor mitre, and He came to serve,and He obeyed His Father all the way to the cross.
Of course this would require sacrifice,obedience and a servants heart, something we all work to attain.
A foolish suggestion, perhaps, but it does demonstrate the destructive nature of veering from the Lordship of Christ Jesus, and obedience to His Word, and His commandments.
“…but whoever desires to become great amoung you, let him be your servant.” Matt.20:26
I don’t think that it is biblically inconsistent to allow women to be presbyters and not overseers. I don’t see evidence in the bible for women overseers, but I do see it for presbyters and deacons. I do admit that I am still conflicted on the issue.
Thing is though — don’t you think that someone who is ambitious for the position of bishop has disqualified him or herself?
Yes, that’s what I had in mind in the original post.
Maybe that’s why Dr Jensen and the Sydney (NSW) Anglican Synod have adopted the term “Presbyter”to replace the old “Priest”. Still, however, they draw the line,in that diocese, at allowing women to become deacons. They also appear to be restricting ordination as “presbyters” to those who are about to take on the role of “overseeing” a parish.
This may be a reflection of the situation in the first century, given that the size of the congregations in those days was probably no more thaqn a couple of hundred people.
I had in mind that the Anglican Communion has traditionally maintained that the difference between bishops and priests is functional (what they do) rather than ontological (what they are) as maintained by the Vatican.
I don’t see how one can maintain that position and claim that women can be priests but not bishops. Either they can be both or neither.
I think he was referring to “these particular” women!