Women Bishops in C of I

martinedwards

Friday, the General Synod voted for full interchangability of Clergy with the Methodist Church.

this is good and right. any SANE person will accept that someone who is a priest in one denomination is still a priest.

it means that in far flung areas, when the C of I rector is on Holiday, the local Methodist can take services and officiate at Communion in the C of I church, and vice versa.

it also means that a Methodist can be appointed as rector of a C of I parish, and vice versa.

MAJOR breakthrough, especially for those wild areas where the churches are few and far between separated by miles of bog & mountain.

tagged onto this bit of legislation is the Methodist President is at the same status as a Bishop.

this month (and not for the first time AFAIK) a woman will be sworn ito office as President of the Methodist Church in Ireland.

so SHE will be a bishop........

homer911

So you are saying that Heather Kingston (we went to school together so I can still call her Heather!) will be a defacto bishop in the CoI. I'm not sure thats what the General Synod really voted for, and its a bit different having an elected representative for a fixed term that a lifetime appointment by a selection committee..

Is this something to get excited over? I left the CoI a long time ago, but I would not have put female clergy down as having any relevance to the decision

martinedwards

well, it won't really affect Heather (I've met her too, so I can call her that as well!) as it'll take another year to rattle through the legal system, but in effect, the president of the Methoidist church will be on par with a bishop. whether that remains after thier period of office (like a C of I Bishop) I don't know......

KatyMac

What is wrong with having female bishops? Once female clergy came into being it makes sense that they can move upwards to the level of bishop. I have no problem male/female or hermophrodite - as long as they are (in the widest sense of the word) good people.

emokin

Women priests is a form of Paganism, it doesn't belong to Christianity. for the Pagans, womens priests were logical, since God was she: Mother nature. And it was fitting for a woman to take on such a role.

But the one true God revealed himself to the Jews, and he was 'He', 'Father'. Jesus was male, because the Father is masculinity. Jesus is *pure* masculinity, itself. So having a woman as a priest makes no sense, theologically or historically. Plus it's an insult to Jesus since it Feminizes him, and an insult to women since it masculinizes them. But you can't tell them. Nobody listens.

jeffery lebowski

emokin wrote: »

Women priests is a form of Paganism, it doesn't belong to Christianity. for the Pagans, womens priests were logical, since God was she: Mother nature. And it was fitting for a woman to take on such a role.

But the one true God revealed himself to the Jews, and he was 'He', 'Father'. Jesus was male, because the Father is masculinity. Jesus is *pure* masculinity, itself. So having a woman as a priest makes no sense, theologically or historically. Plus it's an insult to Jesus since it Feminizes him, and an insult to women since it masculinizes them. But you can't tell them. Nobody listens.

Why does a minister of a religion have to be the same gender as the deity?

lmaopml

A boy can't be a 'nun' either. Do you think there is a revolution as regards boys who want to become nuns? I haven't heard of it.

SoulandForm

lmaopml wrote: »

A boy can't be a 'nun' either. Do you think there is a revolution as regards boys who want to become nuns? I haven't heard of it.

There is no essential difference between a nun and a monk though- so yes a boy can be a monastic, just as a girl can.

ThreeBlindMice

Didn't St Paul make it quite clear about woman preaching in the Church?

http://www.biblestudytools.com/rhe/1-corinthians/passage.aspx?q=1-corinthians+14:34-36

tommy2bad

emokin wrote: »

Women priests is a form of Paganism, it doesn't belong to Christianity. for the Pagans, womens priests were logical, since God was she: Mother nature. And it was fitting for a woman to take on such a role.

But the one true God revealed himself to the Jews, and he was 'He', 'Father'. Jesus was male, because the Father is masculinity. Jesus is *pure* masculinity, itself. So having a woman as a priest makes no sense, theologically or historically. Plus it's an insult to Jesus since it Feminizes him, and an insult to women since it masculinizes them. But you can't tell them. Nobody listens.

First off, Jesus is pure masculinity? I thought He was God and God is nither male or female. If anything as a creator He is more female than male.

Plus it's an insult to Jesus since it Feminizes him,
Way to go, insult a whole gender with a sweeping statement like that then try to back pedal with an insult to women since it masculinizes them which dosn't logicaly follow from the first part.
And we wonder why people think it's all crazy stuff :rolleyes:

Now look at this and ask yourself which gender has the better right to say 'for this is my body...'