• 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!

7 responses to “Eucharistic Prayer”

  1. Stewart Avatar

    Another great clip Kelvin – The singing is great.

    I found myself singing along with the Santus and Benedictus.

    Please more of the service. The cathedral always sounds great when the a large congregation is being supported by the organ. The snippet of “All people that on earth do dwell” to the tune of Jerusalem on the BBC website leaves me wanting more.

  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Yeah, I think ours are the best (although I heard New Zealand’s are lovely too). Who actually writes these things? The then-bishops themselves? Artistic clergy? I can see why they would want them to be written in house but (personally) I think it would be great , in the future, to approach notable writers/poets to do them (Edwin Morgan!) irrespective of belief, and have them checked for theological accuracy by someone appropriate.

  3. Caron Avatar
    Caron

    Do you know, I always thought the 1970 Liturgy was best and I couldn’t come to terms with the modern stuff. I might be more open to persuasion than I thought.

    The atmosphere at the service must have been wonderful and it does come across in the video clip.

    As for the angel – thank you so much for having that attitude to a baby. Others are not so tolerant.

  4. John Penman Avatar
    John Penman

    Totally agree on the excellence of the modern Scottish Liturgy. Having had to suffer the Roman Rite and the ASB when working in Englandshire and occassional exposure to Common Worship (which is both), it was nice to come back to what was/is “simply the best”. Being picky tho, we took a wee while to get there: 1982 was the 1st Eucharistic Prayer – the other 4 were authorised in 1990! Like Caron I was a 1970 fan, but exposure to the Blue Book has made it much more “home” for me.

  5. Eamonn Avatar
    Eamonn

    I agree that the 1982 Liturgy is unbeatable. Every time I visit the C of E or the C of I, the liturgies used seem (with respect) to have yawning gaps in them.

    Caron, the 1970 Liturgy has strengths if you want the underlying theology spelt out in propositional statements. The 1982 service more often expresses the theology through imagery, which to some of us speaks more eloquently. As it happens, a bishop who is a published poet was involved in the drafting.

  6. MadPriest Avatar
    MadPriest

    “Now, what do you want next”
    Have you got any Simpsons, or maybe an early Torchwood episode?

  7. Thomas L W Graham Avatar
    Thomas L W Graham

    Just visiting these sites for the first time. What a wonderful innovation to include all these video’s and sermons etc on the web. Hope the enclosed donation is of some assistance.

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…