Could someone help me out here, the Church of England allows women priests, the current head of the church is a woman (a German pensioner by the name of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha). The current archbishop of Canterbury and the outgoing one both support the idea of women bishops. But some in the church seem to think, heaven forbid if a woman ever became a bishop! :no:
To say this defies logic is to understate the issue. Of course it also underlines the point that there is a large element within any church, or groups of conservatives in general who are essentially allergic to change. They automatically assume that any form of change, be it accepting the earth being round, Darwin’s theory of evolution or anthropogenic climate change is automatically bad and puts us on a slippery slope downwards. And as a result they will literally opposite any proposal put forward.
daryanblog 
I don’t get it either. I suspect partly a case of some women preferring men to be in charge.
And maybe some ridiculous misogynistic supersticious nonsense re. women considered to be less ‘pure’ than men due to menstruation.
LikeLike
Why not dump the idea of bishops entirely? They’re just priests with too much swank and pomposity.
LikeLike
Indeed, in many other religions get by without Bishops, notably the Quakers…course I don’t think that’s going to get past a CoE panel, vote you’re selves out of office? hardly!
LikeLike
I am not a Christian, but I’ve always been particularly interested in the early Christian sects, who were very much against hierarchical systems. It was the Emperor Constantine who caused all the damage and created “Christianity” as we know it, mainly for political reasons!
LikeLike
I’m not particularly religious myself, so like I said, I can’t understand why those who do believe need some guy up the front of the church with a funny hat, costume and cruc to reinforce that believe.
And to go back on topic, why does it matter whether the person in the fancy get up is a man or a woman?
I bring up the quakers as they are perhaps the closest thing to the “pre-Roman” Christianity. After which, the religion became, like so many other faiths throughout history, an instrument of controlling society, the “opium of the masses” as I believe Marx put it.
LikeLike
I suppose the reason is that J had only male apostles, but that was in keeping with the mores of his society. Today with equality of the sexes there should be no bar to women taking on as many previously male roles as they like.
LikeLike
Actually I read once that there were a number of women among the apostles (of which there was more than 12 as well) but the women got airbrushed out of history or had their sex changed to male.
The bible is least we forget written by powerful Roman nobles to suit their needs, too say its a tad “inaccurate” as regards history, and a wee bit out of date is to understate the issue!
LikeLike
Mary Magdalene, for one. I think you’re right about the air-brushing, and that’s what has survived to cause trouble today. I’m just as much against women bishops as I am against men ones – they’re all a big mistake. The Quakers have a much cleaner system.
LikeLike
Quakers….and there porridge oats ain’t bad either ;o
Sorry, can’t help myself!
LikeLike
:))
LikeLike