the Church of England says
no to women bishops, and this issue may not be reintroduced for another five years, unless various chairs and vice-chairs call for it. Which I would be very surprised if they do. Very sad, very disappointed, very much a backward step, it wasn't by much, but it was a democratic vote. The people have spoken. How I wish they wouldn't, sometimes. But there you have it.
4 comments:
This is no misogyny, as i'm sure you well know. But a presevation of scripture and faith. One can be in Government and even a Queen can be the symbolic head. But i suggest you find contentment in a deaconess position.
I am interested in this preservation of scripture and faith issue. It seems to be based on little more than the fact that all the apostles were men. All the apostles were also circumcised jews. And in the very early days of the christian church christians were required to undergo circumcision for that very reason. However, a convenient vision for St Paul, and an early council soon abandoned that. Seems some things Jesus really meant, and others he didnt. Read your Acts of the Apostles.
..sorry the vision was to St Peter. the rest holds.
St Paul, as always was the problem ( and is). This is all because he got pissed off with the Corinthian women gettign uppity and wanting to take their head coverings off. So he came out with all that 'the man is the head of the woman and the woman is the head of the man' baloney.
The problem we have is that it is not a Christian church. It is a Paulinw church. I rest my case.
Post a Comment