• 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!

15 responses to “The Scottish Episcopal Church and the upcoming Primates’ Meeting”

    1. Andrea Maier Avatar
      Andrea Maier

      Concur!

  1. Lionel Deimel Avatar

    We can hope that new primates will change the ethos of the Primates’ Meeting. I’m making no bets on it.

  2. Phil Groves Avatar
    Phil Groves

    100% agreement.

  3. Eamonn Avatar

    Beautifully balanced – and witty, too! Well said!

  4. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
    Meg Rosenfeld

    It’s happening here in the USA and unless you believe that our current president represents God’s punishment (personally, I think God wouldn’t be so tacky) we haven’t blown up yet. As you say, it’s about goodness and love–how radical can we get?

  5. Wayne Kamm Avatar
    Wayne Kamm

    Thank you for an excellent statement!

  6. Tobias Stanislas Haller Avatar

    Well said. Most of the Primates have only limited authority even within their own provinces, and absolutely no authority outside them. Trying to turn international Anglican conferences and meetings into disciplinary bodies is the stuff of fiction. All of that sort of pre-meeting hoopla makes the real work of the meeting, in terms of open dialogue and interaction, much more difficult.

  7. Drew_Mac Avatar
    Drew_Mac

    Well said! There’s been lots of blogging recently about the sensitive consciences of those who inexplicably claim they will be ‘forced’ to marry same-sex couples. At the same time I’m being forced to send loving committed and legally married same-sex couples away without even a formal blessing. Respect for conscience should cut both ways.

  8. Andrew Bowdler Avatar
    Andrew Bowdler

    Kelvin, listening can – and often does – result in disciplining. To try to separate them, as you have in your original piece, is therefore to miss the point. With the enormous divide that exists on this particular issue, one or other side is ultimately going to have to be ‘disciplined’ – and, no, discipline doesn’t have to be harsh or violent. It can equally be gently persuasive.

    1. Jo Avatar
      Jo

      Isn’t the lesson from both TEC and the SEC is that no-one need be disciplined for following their personal conscience; the issue only arises when one side seeks to force the other to act against their conscience and only one side is doing that.

    2. Cynthia Katsarelis Avatar
      Cynthia Katsarelis

      There’s no “gently persuasive” way to say that my spouse and I aren’t loved by God and our sacramental marriage deeply infused with God’s grace.

      Discipline should be to those who have supported criminalization of LGBT people.

    3. Richard Ashby Avatar
      Richard Ashby

      Why should ‘listening’ result in disciplining? It should lead to understanding of an opposite point of view and respect for another’s conscience. Neither the primates nor Lambeth nor the Communion has any power to ‘discipline’ anyone and neither should it. We aren’t Roman Catholics and we don’t have a
      Pope. The Scottish Episcopal Church allow the exercise of conscience on both sides. The problem is that too many Christians want to impose their rules over against another persons conscience. That’s just not right.

      And what’s the point anyway? The ‘consequences’ haven’t changed the mind of the America Anglicans, the prospect didn’t stop the Scottish Church, it’s not going to stop Canada or South Africa.

      1. Andrew Bowdler Avatar
        Andrew Bowdler

        No society or organisation can allow diametrically opposing opinions on the same issue to be held with the same validity, Richard. They can, and often will allow for debate and ‘listening’ but in the long run, one opinion of the other has to be accepted over and against the other. Those who continue to hold the unsuccessful opinion will then have to accept the other, or face ‘discipline’ in one of a number of forms. When said society allows meaningless phrases such as ‘hate crime’ to brandied about with no legal or linguistic definition to support them, that society opens itself to a form of anarchy.

        1. Richard Ashby Avatar
          Richard Ashby

          But I thought that that the CofE has ‘two integrities’ on women as priests and bishops. What about ‘mutual flourishing’. In your view this is obviously impossible in long term (actually I happen to agree with you on that.) but what’s sauce for the goose etc

          We are supposed to be living side by side with these tensions. The Scottish Church has said that no one is to be forced to marry or not marry same sex couples. I know some people think that is impossible, I’ve been told so by members of ‘Christian concern’ etc. But we cannot allow these people to dictate to us what we hold by our consciences also to be true.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • St Columba's Day

    St Kelvin’s Day too. I celebrated my sixth anniversary as a priest today.

  • Voting

    “No, I’m not voting on Thursday – there is no point. It makes not difference anyway. I cannot think of any reason to vote at all.” Is the threat of far-right parties taking seats not reason enough for anyone?

  • Hoodwinked

    Yesterday was Trinity Sunday and so we sang St Patrick’s Breastplate in church. Unfortunately, I was hoodwinked by a modern hymn book which missed out the following verse – Against all Satan’s spells and wiles, Against false words of heresy, Against the knowledge that defiles, Against the heart’s idolatry, Against the wizard’s evil craft, Against…