A Modest Proposal

[steepholm]

If the CofE wants to foul its own nest, that's its business. I think the vote tonight was disgusting, but then I disagree with them on many subjects. However, I see no reason at all why lawmakers in an effectively secular body such as Parliament should be chosen from a group that is closed to one sex.

Now obviously I'd like full disestablishment and an elected upper chamber, but even if that's going to take while, can't we at least prevent bishops from voting in the House of Lords until they're chosen on a basis that doesn't flout the principles of sex discrimination?

Comments

[kalypso]

It seems a bit hard on the bishops when they were 90% in favour... it's the bloody laity I'd ban, they're the ones who sank the whole thing by only managing 64%.

[steepholm]

I don't think not being able to vote in the House of Lords can really be classed as a hardship - or if it is, it's one most of us manage to cope with. Perhaps the bishops would welcome it, if it had the effect of waking their laity up?

[kalypso]

It is interesting that the people actually doing the job don't see a problem with women sharing it.

I remember, back in the days when church-goers were getting excited about David Jenkins*, my mother reported going to a dinner party where a retired cleric remarked that it was all first-year theological college stuff, and other diners were quite upset and asked "but if you all think this, why aren't you telling us?" So I've always had the impression that, despite the apparent prominence of Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, people tend to get more liberal as they rise through the church, but keep their mouths shut to avoid shocking parishioners. In which case this is payback for not educating said parishioners.

* who is still being misquoted - only a week or so back The Observer (I think) referred to the Bishop of Durham who said the resurrection was a conjuring trick with bones, whereas Jenkins' point was that it had to have been more than a conjuring trick etc for it to have become the starting point of a new religion.

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

There's already a petition.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/41394

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Signed.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

Signed as well.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Signed.

Problem is that it was the seculars (including, to my chagrin, numerous women) that voted this down, not the bishops.

They're claiming Bibilical precendent. Now, I'd say I know the Book pretty well and there isn't any.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was the laity, but that doesn't have a bearing on the fact that this part of our legislature is drawn exclusively from men. It's a problem, but we don't have to let it be our problem.

The Bible has nothing at all to say about bishops, so it would be hard for it to specify who should become one! Of course, there's 1 Corinthians, where Paul says that women shouldn't speak in church, but that pass was sold some time ago, and quite right too. That's the same letter in which he says that "nature" teaches that long hair is degrading to men - by which rule he must disapprove of Jesus, unless the iconography of the church is mistaken and Jesus actually had a crew cut?

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Paul of Tarsus appears to have been a ghastly misogynist unlike the Prophet Rabbi Yeshu bar Joseph who seems to have liked the company of women.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

As an American Jew, I think that makes perfect sense.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Do I understand correctly that the C of E has no problem with women becoming priests, but it draws the line at their becoming bishops? If so, exactly what is the line of reasoning here, if it can be called that?

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

a) Yes, that's right, and b) I honestly have no idea. I'd love to know, but so far I've not heard a coherent theological explanation (as opposed to a tactical political one).