Well, since WAC8 deals with women and religion, I thought it would be important to point out a story I saw on the news the other day pertaining to merry ole England. Hundreds of Anglican traditionalists threaten to leave the church if safeguards were not put up to hinder women becoming bishops. Women have been allowed to become priests in the church since 1994. And, it wasn’t until the beginning of this month that the "woman bishop" debate began to heat up. The traditionalists argue that Jesus only wanted men in leadership positions, and with women now being allowed to become bishops maybe by 2014, bishops threaten to leave the Church of England for the Church of Rome. Traditionalists, who want to combat women bishops, propose creating a new breed of bishop…oh, yes, the dreaded SUPER BISHOP. Now, I don’t know much about these “super bishops,” but I do know that they are faster than a speeding bullet, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, and their only weakness is not kryptonite but the thought of women becoming bishops. OH NO. These proposed super bishops will, of course, outrank women bishops. Thus, continuing male dominance in the Church of England.
Will Super bishops defeat women bishops? Will this posting be a slight bit funny?…tune in next time same bishop-time, same bishop-channel…seriously, find out more at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/07/anglicanism.religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
The idea of a "super bishop" is just hilarious. If the Traditionalists can say that Jesus did not want women to become bishops, do they really believe Jesus would have wanted Super Bishops? And how does one qualify to be a super bishop? Eventually I am sure all men would be considered super bishops because the whole point was to allow them to be ranked higher than women.
Back to the Jesus not wanting women to be in power belief- Christians are taught that Jesus loved everyone equally, so how can one believe that He would have not wanted a woman to be in power? That seems like it is hateful towards women, something Jesus probably would not have approved of.
yeah, it seems like some of these super bishops have never heard of Mary Magdeline. There is also a gospel of Mary Magdeline, but this was of course thrown out during the council of Niciea, which decided what would go into the our modern bible. By the way, the council was many many years after the death of Jesus. Oh yeah, the council was an all men council, who would have thought...
Brad, interesting comment, but not 100% correct. I checked with a friend of mine who is getting his phd in Theology. According to him (and his research), the council of Nicaea did approve a biblical cannon, but the controversy really began back in the 2nd century with Marcion, and much of the debate focused around how "Jewish" the scriptures were. There is no gospel in history/evidence that is attributed to Mary Magdeline.
Now, there are a lot of issues here, and I'm not saying that gender is not one (it certainly is). But there are also many conspiracy theories on biblical history. Maybe they're right, maybe they're not -- I always find such theories interesting, but am also interested in what is "accepted" as "truth" at any given point in time. And so far, notsomuch on this particular "truth".
Still, though, def. interesting.
Post a Comment