Recently, the Church of England
opposed a movement to allow women to become bishops within their religious
community. With the failure to accept this modern move, the church only makes
itself even more seemingly outdated and outmoded precursor to 21st
century living.
The proposal, rejected on the 20th
November, refused the ordination of women bishops largely on the grounds of
tradition. However, in an era where tradition is often disregarded for the
latest in innovation, and equality is always at the forefront of Western
democracy, this argument does not appeal to the public en masse.
Perhaps you might cry that this
in itself is blasphemy and indicative of how far Western civilization has moved
away from religious doctrine.
Yet, religion is, by its
definition, a system of personal beliefs (“The belief in and worship of a
superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God”). If we are to galvanise a
generation to return to God, then we need build out from the belief that God is
all understanding, all knowing and all forgiving.
Surely, this God in all his
wisdom would not allow for women bishops if he thought it sacrilege. You may
deem that statement something akin to a religious nut. But the inverse argument
is being upheld in practice. God has not given a sign, so let’s not move
forward.
A Christ-like prophet today would
surely amend a great many of the practical sides of the Christian doctrine. The
fundamentals would of course be the same: but, restrictive and outdated views,
informed by gender, orientation, race and other discriminatory factors would be
all but removed.
The ‘example’ of Christ who had
12 male disciples is often used as a staunch argument for preventing women
entering these positions in the church. However, Jesus, an outsider in the
message he preached, needed male figures to continue to carry his message if it
were to last and survive. Women of the 1st century, through to women
of the 20th century, hardly held social influence at large. Women
weren’t sidelined, just fulfilled roles that social positioning would allow
them.
Now, social equality means that
stigmas attached to the fairer sex are not at all restrictive. Why would
religion keep up this pretence.
More, can someone please explain
this decision with any rationale when a Queen can be supreme dictator (or whatever the official
term actually is) of the Church of England, and well, the same one has been for
the past 60 years. There is no logic. At all.
Besides, if we’re all wrong about
this equality for all (which from just about every teaching ever, I’d say we’re
not), our all merciful God will forgive us, because the omnipresent being will
comprehend that we did it with the best of intentions.
All that has been achieved is a
further zone of religious exclusion. And if anything, surely that is the larger
of these two sins by any measurement.
