I spoke too soon

December 30, 2008

I should’ve saved yesterday’s post for today. Here’s another story on the Church of England, who are now having another spat over women bishops.

So, what’s new? Well they want to change the rules so that women can be bishops, but some of the clergy have kicked up a fuss so they want to make “flying bishops” who can serve parishes in a female bishops diocese who object to it. What gets me is that there isn’t even any scriptural argument being made over it this time, or if there is it hasn’t been covered. They already have women vicars, so why are they bothered about making them bishops? The simple fact is that they don’t want to be “under the control” of women. It’s nothing more than sexism.

I can’t help thinking that if this was any other kind of organisation, this attitude would be totally unacceptable and heads would roll over it. But because it’s a Church, they’re allowed to make their own rules up. The objectors call themselves ‘traditionalists’. I call them bigots.

Now what I find particularly alarming is that certain members of the clergy are threatening to go to the Catholic Church if this goes ahead. Doesn’t that really undermine the particular beliefs of Anglicans if they’re willing to turn to Catholicism over a little something like this? It’s very little to do with religious belief itself, it’s just politics. Grow up.

Women bishops

July 8, 2008

Once again the conservative foaming-at-the-mouth Bible bashers are showing their intolerance by opposing a move that would allow women to be ordained as CofE bishops. Fortunately the General Synod has voted in favour of the motion, although it’s likely that it’ll be watered down in a code of practice which will seek a compromise with the ‘traditionalists’ who oppose the move. They want to have male ‘super-bishops’ so that the ‘traditionalist’ parishes can work under a male bishop instead of the female bishop who may be in their area. How is this any different from the sexism that exists in the church now? It just creates a 2-tier system, once again telling women that they’re not equal. Is it just me or could ‘traditionalist’ be switched with ‘bigoted’ in almost every usage of the word on this subject?

What is the big deal? These sexists have been pointing to the Bible in places like Mathew 5 where he names the disciples and saying that they’re all men, and so all the bishops should be men too. So what? They were probably all ethnically Middle-Eastern with┬ádark hair, too, so should we only let middle-eastern dark-haired men be bishops? Of course not! And in 2 Timothy 2, the word ‘man’ is used to describe someone who could teach others about the grace of God. So what? The passage was written in a sexist time when slavery was condoned. Fortunately we’ve moved on from those times, but these ‘traditionalists’ wouldn’t mind going back. These people are hiding behind their Bibles, claiming that they can’t ‘in conscience’ go along with it, when in reality it’s nothing more than sexist bollocks. I’ve watched people with blatently sexist opinions being interviewed on TV, sometimes by female journalists, and not once does anyone come out and say “hold on a sec, you’re saying women aren’t good enough. You’re a sexist.” Where is the moral objection to having women bishops? Why would God be so outraged with women becoming members of the clergy? Why is it so important that people are threatening to leave the church over it? Put your dress and your funny hat back on, shut up and get back to lying to people for a living.

Once again, this is a classic example of people interpreting their religious texts in different ways and coming to very different conclusions about an important issue. For me, it’s high time we stopped tolerating intolerance hidden beneath the religious banner.