Responding to my post about management, Dave Paisley quoted my words “those who are rendered spiritually homeless as a result” and commented: Surely that should be “those who have rendered themselves spiritually homeless as a result”? It’s a choice.<\/i> I want in this post to explore what I think is wrong about that comment, because I think it is one of the factors that unnecessarily complicate our debate about women bishops. <\/p>\n
Viewpoints that don’t accept women bishops, as I understand them Con Evo – scripture primary not anglican but not internally inconsistent not misogynistic Con Ang-Cath – tradition primary not anglican not misogynistic impossibilist position – the one I have most sympathy with (though I don’t ultimately agree with it) difference between male and female, priesthood\/episcopacy\/leadership can only be carried out by a male scriptural perspective and church perspective follow from that problem is binary polarity – doesn’t adequately describe human nature difficult to cash out ‘male’ in any relevant sense that would exclude all (biological females) progress does not come through arguing about presenting issue not a ‘choice’ A bit of academic background – post on Locke (extract from a temporarily abandoned book)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Responding to my post about management, Dave Paisley quoted my words “those who are rendered spiritually homeless as a result” and commented: Surely that should be “those who have rendered themselves spiritually homeless as a result”? It’s a choice. I … Continue reading