Covering the recent decision by a synod of bishops in the Anglican Church to permit the ordination of female bishops, CNN.com repeatedly alluded to "traditionalist" opposition to women holding episcopal office, but failed to find one such spokesman for traditionalists to defend the theology behind the position. (h/t Damian G. of Conservathink)
Indeed, the one traditionalist cited in the article had a middle-ground position, saying he had no problem with female bishops, so long as conservative Anglicans could have an out of sorts. Of course that compromise was smacked down in another synod vote:
David Holding, a traditionalist church member, said he does not object to female bishops, but "there must be a proper provision made for those who can't go along with it."
The lack of a provision to allow traditionalists to choose to be under a "super bishop" instead of a woman raises concern that a schism could develop in the Church of England.
CNN cited two supporters of female bishops and closed its article quoting one of them, Alan Duke, as scoffing at the "bluster" of conservatives who threatened to leave the Anglican Church over the matter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I firmly believe CNN can
July 9, 2008 - 07:23 ET by richflanjI firmly believe CNN can find (or create) anyone that promotes the left's agenda on any topic.
Parody:
"This is CNN. We are here with Joe Smith, a Satan worshiper who filed suit in Federal court against the Catholic Church because they won't let him become a parish priest. Tell us, Joe, how does the Catholic Church justify the exlusionary nature of its policy?" ........
That's because...
July 9, 2008 - 08:45 ET by Copperhead Ridge...those opposed are joining other churches.
There is some merit to that,
July 9, 2008 - 08:53 ET by Ken ShepherdThere is some merit to that, however, if that's the case, the reporter could say, "we could find no one willing to go on the record to defend the traditionalist position."
But you are correct that most people that would strongly oppose female bishops have probably already left when the Church of England started allowing female clergy, since there's no biblical distinction between the teaching/preaching/governing authority of bishops with those of local congregation elders (pastors, parish priests, what have you).
Not Difficult to Find
July 9, 2008 - 10:48 ET by bradbenj5952Anyone who believes the scripture will know that women cannot be bishops. Sorry ladies, I had nothing to do with the writing of holy writ, to wit: "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then
must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good
behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:1-7
As you can see, it is impossible for a woman bishop to be "the husband of one wife", which is a requirement for a bishop according to scripture.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Actually, the problem is
July 9, 2008 - 13:35 ET by Damian GActually, the problem is that opponents of female clergy have ONLY cited Scripture.
You see, in the Anglican Church, there is a very Protestant faction and a very Catholic faction. Unfortunately, it is chiefly the Protestant-minded Anglicans who have led the fight against female clergy, and they have only cited Scripture... which is exactly what the pro-women clergy side does. They "reinterpret" the Bible to their liking so that their heresies somehow make sense.
It is the Catholic doctrines of Sacred Tradition and the Apostolic Succession which best combat female clergy, but sadly, those beliefs are rarely the main argument of female clergy opponents.
What's worse is that many of those who oppose women bishops only do so out of the necessity of holding the world-wide Anglican Communion together. There are many male clergy who have no problem with priestesses but do have a problem with women bishops - which makes absolutely no sense.
Also, many "traditionalists" have no problem with female clergy at all; they only oppose homosexual clergy. They have no respect for the Catholic roots of the Church and are very evangelical in their worship style (no offence to any Protestants and evangelicals here - I'm saying this purely as an intra-Church criticism). It is this anti-homosexual, pro-female clergy group, which is quite strong in the American South, which only serves to encourage the incorrect view that Church traditonalists are merely closed-minded, homophobic bigots.
However, no amount of
July 9, 2008 - 13:58 ET by bradbenj5952However, no amount of "tradition" and "orthodoxy" can replace the literal meaning of the verses quoted above. Nor, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." I Timothy 2:12-14 To embrace the notion that God is "calling" women to be bishops or other positions of authority within the churches is to ignore the clear meaning of the word of God. The only way to achieve any level of plausibility in their own minds, and hence ease their consciences, is to either ignore scripture (what unbelievers do every day), redefine words, or find a "translation" more conducive with their opinions.
God is not the author of confusion.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Oh, of course the Bible
July 9, 2008 - 15:14 ET by Damian GOh, of course the Bible should never be used for the scurrilous purposes of the heretics. I'm just saying, when it is the heretics who are in charge, our correct interpretation falls on deaf ears. Sacred Tradition and Apostolic Succession are unassailable precedents which can not be reinterpreted.