You may recall that I have previously written about The Women of The Wall in a previous post. Well - there's been another issue at the Wall. It happened last week, but I've been way-layed as far as writing about it. There's been a lot going on preparing for Thanksgiving, kids sick, kindergarten issues and getting back into the swing of things in addition to what has been going on in Israel as of late. I also got some bad news about some family members of mine, so - if you can think about it, please be in prayer for those unspoken needs.
Six women arrested for wearing prayer shawls at Western Wall
Other women, who had wrapped their smaller, more colorful 'female' prayer shawls around
their necks like scarves, were not detained. - Haaretz
There isn't much more news than this, other than to state that the women who wore their talliot improperly were not arrested. This is a month after the leader of Women of the Wall was arrested for doing the same, and Rabbis forbidden - leading a Torah study with a Torah Scroll at the wall.
Of course I'm incensed. Why in the world is one article of clothing, that many ancient rabbis said are not an obligation for women, but a mitzvah we can take on, suddenly something that makes people so angry that women are arrested and contained in prison with real criminals? Why in the world are women who are simply worshiping G-d so offensive that they have to be put in jail like prostitutes, thieves and murderers?
Add on to this, that the Church of England recently came to a vote about having women bishops or not and the vote was so close (by six votes!), and they failed to allow women bishops.
"Many of the 470 members of the church’s three-tiered General Synod (bishops, clergy and laity) were stunned that the House of Laity couldn’t garner a two-thirds majority in favor of women bishops. The voted failed by just five votes, 132-74, after easily passing the bishops and clergy."
Washington Post: Church of England rejects women bishops
"The house of bishops, which voted 44 to three in favour of the reform with two abstentions, will meet for an emergency session to try to find a way to rescue the legislation.If it fails, the synod will not be able to return to women bishops legislation for another three years, during which time supporters are likely to push for a more uncompromising single clause measure. "
The Guardian: Church of England bishops plot response to vote to exclude women
"The vote seemed certain to sharpen divisions within the English church, the historic homeland of Anglicanism. Twenty years after the church approved the ordination of female priests, which took decades, a third of its clergy members are women, many holding senior positions like canons and archdeacons. Their expectation had been that they would begin to win appointments as bishops by 2014 if the change had been approved."
NYT: Church of England Rejects Appointing Female Bishops
In the Church of England women have been able to serve as priests since the early 1990s. The draft legislation would have continued that service by "enabling a woman to be consecrated to the office of the bishop if she otherwise satisfies the requirements of Canon Law as to the persons who may be consecrated as bishops."CNN Belief Blog: Church of England rejects female bishops by six votes
I'm having trouble posting the Daily Mail article with the comments I found helpful to explain some of the feelings on this issue, so please check this out: The Daily Mail: Right Reverend Justin Welby tweets Verdict - Church of England Rejected women bishops.
Tell me, why does it matter if someone in ministry has a penis or a vagina, if G-d has called them? Why for the last 1,000 years (give or take a few decades) has it been (unless you're called to be a nun), that women have been forbidden ministry and worship opportunities?
Paul worked with women as apostles, elders, deacons... there were women who prophesied and hosted assemblies in their homes and financed synagogues. What in the world happened between now and then to make women a lesser species?
I don't know how to say this, but this is not what G-d has ordained. It's not His design. A few twisted Scriptures/Commentary do not a rule from Heaven make.
It's a sad day indeed, and the CoE is not even my church. It just further proves that there are not that many opportunities that are "ordained" by men for women to do what G-d calls us to do.
In one of the articles I read this week (Sorry, I don't remember which one) - this stuck out to me:
it has been remarkable to hear the number of times in recent weeks people reciting that women are forbidden from exercising authority (1 Tim 2.12 does not say that), or that a man is the ruler of the household (that comes from Aristotle’s Politics, not the New Testament), or that headship is about authority (which in 1 Cor 11 it is not), or that there is gender hierarchy in Genesis 2 (there is none).
How very true.
"As long as women are not accepted fully as ministers in all areas of church life, then all of us must share in their pain of rejection, of half-acceptance, and all of us must do our utmost to affirm those women that we know in ministry. This is not a women’s issue any more than racism is a black issue. It is also not a human rights or equality issue. It is nothing to do with man boobs or lady boobs. It is theological issue, and the Church of England resolved it in the 1970′s (just) before I was born. It is not irrelevant. It is imperative."
The Blog of Kevin: Man boobs
"...this has seriously undermined the credibility of the Church, as a moment’s glance at any of the press will tell you. It seems to me somewhat ironic that evangelicals who are concerned with mission have been instrumental in doing such damage. To claim that this is not about credibility, but about ‘doing things God’s way’ is delusional. Some people need to get out more!
...if this vote is defended as an expression of biblical values, then most people will decide that they would rather do without such a Bible. Defence of a ‘biblical’ position requires that there is a credible apologetic, and for those outside the Church this position has none.."
Psephizo...it all adds up: What does the decision on women bishops mean?
"All Christian ministry begins with the announcement that Jesus has been raised from the dead. And Jesus entrusted that task, first of all, not to Peter, James, or John, but to Mary Magdalene. Part of the point of the new creation launched at Easter was the transformation of roles and vocations: from Jews-only to worldwide, from monoglot to multilingual (think of Pentecost), and from male-only leadership to male and female together.Within a few decades, Paul was sending greetings to friends including an “apostle” called Junia (Romans xvi, 7). He entrusted that letter to a “deacon” called Phoebe whose work was taking her to Rome. The letter-bearer would normally be the one to read it out to the recipients and explain its contents. The first expositor of Paul’s greatest letter was an ordained travelling businesswoman."Fulcrum renewing the evangelical centre: Women Bishops: It’s about the Bible, not fake ideas of progress
I don't normally post, or even turn on my computer on Shabbat... but today, I don't know why - I just had to get this out there. Why in the world does a slight DNA difference, and reproductive parts + cultural expectations from pagan Greek and Roman beliefs dictate what we do as a people of Faith?
It has to change.