Plans were announced last night to appoint a new bishop in the Church of England who will specifically believe that women are subordinate to men to minister to, encourage and represent those in the Church of England who believe this, ie that men have been given headship over women by God, to be true. (This isn’t a joke, this is real).
This had been planned for some time and was part of the deal whereby that church agreed to open the Episcopate to candidates who happen to be female.
It rather neatly proves some of the terrible things I was saying about the Church of England earlier in the week to be true.
On this occasion, I take no pleasure in being right.
The following questions arising from the misogyny of a “headship” bishop should now be raised:
- To Members of Parliament: Are you really comfortable with 1 million children being educated every day by an organisation with these values?
- To candidates in the next election: Will you support the disestablishment of the Church of England because organisations which behave in this way should have no privileged place in parliament?
- To the Archbishop of Canterbury: Do you realise that this makes you personally look like a misogynist too as suffragan appointments are always personal to the bishop involved?
- In the General Synod of the Church of England: …. and if people ask for a bishop with racist views to represent them, will we do that too?
- To the BBC: Why are you not covering this story as a major news item?
- To those who serve in Church House, Westminster: Why do progressive changes to the Church of England have to go through years of debate at General Synod and regressive ones don’t?
- To Primates around the communion: Why is this novelty and abuse of the episcopate acceptable when the appointment of a man who happened to be gay was so unacceptable?
- To the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of many in this country that the Church of England is institutionalising misogyny.
- To the silent Church of England Bishops who believe themselves to be liberal: How do you sleep?
- To the first woman to be consecrated as bishop in the Church of England: Was it worth it on these terms?
I think it is time for this discussion either to draw to a close or return to the 10 questions that I posed in the original post.
I’ve chosen not to allow a number of comments through. These include one which indirectly compared me (and presumably “the liberals”) to paedophiles, a number which were of the “The bible plainly states that women are subordinate to men” type, another which was verging on proof-texting and another one which was trying to suggest to me and my readers that the payment of money to a particular religious leader in Africa who was able to cast spells would sort out a number of our problems.
It is my blog, and I chose which comments to allow. Discussion of my commenting policy is not necessary.
But casting spells… You’ve never had that offer before. Are you sure you aren’t tempted?
You think my own are not sufficient?
Fair enough – answers to the 10 questions:
1. To Members of Parliament: Are you really comfortable with 1 million children being educated every day by an organisation with these values?
A: Apparently yes; there being faith schools (both Christian and Muslim) that teach ethics that you would find objectionable. Part of free speech, I guess.
2. To candidates in the next election: Will you support the disestablishment of the Church of England because organisations which behave in this way should have no privileged place in parliament?
A: I’m ambivalent about disestablishment; I think it will happen during the time I’m a C of E priest. But yeah – why not? – let’s disestablish rather than let non-Christian politicians ride roughshod over Christians’ consciences.
3. To the Archbishop of Canterbury: Do you realise that this makes you personally look like a misogynist too as suffragan appointments are always personal to the bishop involved?
A: I’m certain he is aware how this measure would be attacked, and that despite that he proceeded.
4. In the General Synod of the Church of England: …. and if people ask for a bishop with racist views to represent them, will we do that too?
A: No one is doing so. Nor would they be able to with biblical warrant. Fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.
5. To the BBC: Why are you not covering this story as a major news item?
A: Because this is unremarkable now, given that it was agreed months ago in the run up to the measure being put before Synod.
6. To those who serve in Church House, Westminster: Why do progressive changes to the Church of England have to go through years of debate at General Synod and regressive ones don’t?
A: This isn’t a change; the novelty was in not having complementarian bishops since +Wallace Benn retired.
7. To Primates around the communion: Why is this novelty and abuse of the episcopate acceptable when the appointment of a man who happened to be gay was so unacceptable?
A: Because the majority of the Anglican Communion worldwide see this measure as consonant with biblical convictions, but the appointment of a gay bishop as not being so.
8. To the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of many in this country that the Church of England is institutionalising misogyny.
A: Presumably he, like the unanimous Dioceses committee and the Archbishops don’t think this is misogynistic.
9. To the silent Church of England Bishops who believe themselves to be liberal: How do you sleep?
A: They may indeed find it objectionable, but have chosen to honour the promises made in the Guiding Principles for the greater good of the Church.
10. To the first woman to be consecrated as bishop in the Church of England: Was it worth it on these terms?
A: These were the only terms available after the legislation failed in 2012.
Sorry, not on the 10 Qs but if you will allow I do want to respond to Ender’s post. I did not say that God was not interested in sexual relationships. I said I didn’t much care what people got up to with their genitalia. Textual criticism means being attentive to the text!