Forgive me, I am repeating myself here, but someone else must have thought about this important question before and better than me.
It seems that those of us who are against women Bishops really need to work out which of the following positions we take (or what other position we adopt). This is key to working out what proper provision would be like for us.
Is it:
(1) Bishops are and must be men; women are not and cannot be men men; women are not and cannot be Bishops. That is, the Church of England might try to make women Bishops but that cannot be done, it is impossible. We cannot acknowledge a woman as a true Bishop even if she might be a bishop in law.
Or
(2) Women ought not to be bishops but they can be. The Church of England shouldn't make women Bishops but it can and it will. We can acknowledge women as true and lawful Bishops even though we wouldn't and shouldn't have done this thing.
Position (2) would make it a lot easier for us and the provision we would need would be less significant. And presumably it would make the Women Bishops and their supporters happier.
Does that all make sense? Are these good questions and what are the answers?
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I've thought about it this way too. (When I was re-thinking baptism - yet again - a while ago, I found it helpful to consider "should infants be baptised?" as a separate question to "can infants be baptised?" and the whole issue became a lot clearer.) Does it become easy then for those who fit in category (2)? A woman bishop is in the same category as a male bishop who shouldn't be a bishop because he doesn't believe the Scriptures, and that's not a new situation to find oneself in. Perhaps?
Thanks Marc (and Anthony). I was a fuzzy (1) until about 8 months ago, then realised I was a (2). But for how long will those who hold either position be selected, offered posts or allowed to continue to say that women ought not to be made bishops, or presbyters?
Post a Comment