• Is it a sin?

    Is it a sin, I find myself asking rhetorically, for men and women to be treated differently by institutions? Is it a sin for women and men to have unequal access to power and privilege.

    My own view is that it is not merely wrong for gender to be a determining factor in what someone can do or achieve but that it is a sin.

    Now, don’t start asking me to defend that from a biblical position. This blog tries to live in the land of common sense after all. If you want arguments that use biblical texts to try to “prove” an argument one way or another, I hope, if you’ve been reading along for a while, you know fine well to try someone else’s web page. We don’t do that round here.

    The thing is, the Church of England has a decision to make soon as to whether to adopt the legislation currently before its General Synod that would allow women to be selected to be bishops. It has been a long and drawn out affair getting to this point. What England has been debating is how to retain within one church people who say they cannot accept the authority of bishops who happen to be women whilst also accepting the full authority of those women as leaders within the organisation.

    It can’t be done, of course.

    What has been proposed is a process by which congregations will be able to opt not to recognise a women who happens to be leading the diocese in which they exist but that they might request oversight, in some way, from someone else. The means by which this might be done has been subject to intense scrutiny. What is currently proposed is commonly said to be the best legislation that might pass in their synod.

    Now, one does not comment on the business of another Anglican church’s synodical process lightly. No, really, one doesn’t. After all, one tends to find oneself arguing quite strongly for provincial autonomy within the Anglican Communion, for example by making the point that the American church was quite entitled to choose Gene Robinson as a bishop if it wanted to do so, thank you very much.

    Those who did pile into the Gene Robinson argument from outside America argued that his consecration damaged the whole. His being a bishop undermined the local episcopacy elsewhere – or so they said.

    Curiously, I feel much the same about the current legislation in England. If I were a member of the Church of England and a member of its Synod, I would be voting against it, even though I’m a great believer in women having exactly the same opportunities as men and women and an advocate for the cause of opening the Episcopate to men and women equally.

    The reason for me saying so out loud is because I think that decisions made in England long ago over questions about whether women could be priests in England were at the root of so much of the Anglican controversies of recent years. The C of E somehow came to the conclusion that you could have priests who were women but also be in the church and not accept that those women were priests. It was a move that baffled many both inside and outside. And it also gave rise to the so-called “Flying Bishops” and talk of there being two integrities within the one church – an absurd contradiction in terms. That flying bishop idea is far more the cause of the trouble the Anglican Communion faces than the election of Gene Robinson was. The idea that you had to agree with your bishop’s predilections and pecedillos was hitherto entirely alien. In the past, you might not agree with your bishop, but he still was your bishop. Now, you could opt out and chose someone more suited to your own prejudices.

    It was odd that there were those who could live with bishops they did not like or agree with in their own country who could not accept Gene Robinson being a bishop in another country.

    Anyway, having had that experience, Anglicans from outside England might well be cautious of the current legislation facing the English Synod. If it passes, as it looks as if it may, the unintended consequences might, as with flying bishops, be enormous. If you sow the wind of sexism, you may well reap the whirlwind.

    Because I believe in the equality of women and men, I find myself very reluctantly hoping that England says No!

5 responses to “Sermon preached on 14 March 2010”

  1. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    It is always interesting to me to travel the world from the comfort of my home on Sundays and get a feel for how different of our honored clergy approach a shared topic as we have the same readings in our Anglican worship. (Not forgetting that other flavors of Christians are also using those same readings as well.)

    Father Tobias Haller has a much different angle to this story in the form of poetry on his blog; The Elder Son and the Father’s Repentance

    Regarding Bishop David as you current ordinary, is that a canonical device of SEC, it seems different from how it is handled in TEC and so here in Mexico. When there is no diocesan bishop the Diocesan Standing Committee is then the ecclesiastical authority in a diocese and they can choose to “hire” a bishop for episcopal functions in the interim period until a new diocesan is elected and enthroned. The hired gun is often a neighboring diocesan, a resident or neighboring suffragan or assistant or they may even pull someone from retirement for a short period.

    I was happy, that as with you Father Kelvin, I had no trouble at all understanding +David’s accent! I see also that you have managed to repair that lean to your pulpit.

    When +David defined prodigal as extravagant waste I was immediately reminded of the writings of one of my favorite bishops, the blessed +John Shelby Spong at whose feet I studies one summer at Vancouver School of Theology. He often states, “God, who is the Source of Love, calls us to love wastefully.” God’s love for us is in the measure of extravagant waste and God calls us to love one another just as wastefully. As did the father in the parable.

    I cannot recall who of the Master Painters, but I know of a painting of the return of this Prodigal Son where the haste with which the father rushed to greet his son is represented in the fact that he is out in the road hugging his son in his fine clothes, but he is wearing mismatched shoes. I have experienced just such love and concern from my own Papá as I have seen him responding to emergencies in the middle of the night in our wee village and glancing down to see that he is wearing one shoe and a bedroom slipper!

    Pardon my rambles today, this simple sermon sparked many thoughts.

    1. kelvin Avatar

      During an Episcopal Vacancy, it seems to be becoming common for someone to be appointed to be Bishops’ Commissary for the vacancy. This gives them delegated authority for administrative functions. The Ordinary, in such circumstances is usually the Primus though I think that the Priumus (or perhaps the Episcopal Synod) can nominate someone else to look after an Episcopal Vacancy.

  2. ryan Avatar

    Ooh, what’s a Priumus? (and yes, I googled – unsuccessfully – before asking!)

  3. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    A Priumus is a typo. Nothing more.

  4. ryan Avatar

    Thanks! I did (genuinely) wonder if it was something different (like a collegiate group who make primus-like decisions in an empty see?) because of the “Primus though I think that the primus” (as opposed to Primus/s/he phrasing). Feel a bit D’Oh now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • God is Black

    Robert Beckford's documentary about the rise of African Christianity, “God is Black” was excellent. So good, it made me wish I had a video recorder that I could work.

  • Full Election Results for Stirling Constituency

      Votes Share ChangeConservative 5144  26.2%-2.1% Labour4268 21.7% -1.6% SNP327216.6% -8.0% Lib Dem 2586 13.1% +4.5% Green 1799 9.1% +2.0% UKIP 1125 5.7% +4.7% SSP 764 3.9% +1.1% “Christian”2641.3% +1.3% Wind 143 0.7% +0.8% BNP 217 0.8% +0.5% Tate (Ind) 64 0.3% +0.3% Rejected Votes62 0.3%      Total 19646   Turnout 38.4%   The results show a poor result for the Conservatives and Labour who both lost ground and a terrible result for the SNP who have slipped down a place and whose vote collapsed by 8%. The UKIP did well with a rise of 4.7% o­n last time, but nothing like the showing that…