Tuesday, January 6, 2009


Various discussions are reviving in the Anglican blogosphere re women and episcopacy (go to Stand Firm for example). Particularly jumped on by some conservative commenters are women in England speaking for the possibility of women bishops who mix their speech with some less than satisfactory theology, or even with no theology at all. What I am noticing is that, however unintentionally, some conservative responses are 'anti-women'. I say this because the argument beneath the responses is not 'if we are going to have women bishops let's ensure they are sound theologians' but 'see, women cannot be trusted to be sound theologians, which means, of course, that they should not be bishops'.

Now, there are arguments for women not being bishops which are not inherently 'anti-women' (some are included in this posting-and-thread on Stand Firm), but I wonder if some conservatives should take more care to confine themselves to such arguments rather than beat up on women in the sub-texts of other arguments they bring forward!

Final noticing by me: somehow a lot of sins of male leaders in the church seem to get overlooked in some of these discussions!

No comments: