What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • 10 questions arising from the misogyny of a “headship” bishop

    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:

    1. To Members of Parliament: Are you really comfortable with 1 million children being educated every day by an organisation with these values?
    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?
    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?
    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?
    5. To the BBC: Why are you not covering this story as a major news item?
    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?
    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?
    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.
    9. To the silent Church of England Bishops who believe themselves to be liberal: How do you sleep?
    10. To the first woman to be consecrated as bishop in the Church of England: Was it worth it on these terms?

     

    , , ,

4 responses to “Book Review”

  1. Peter O Avatar
    Peter O

    I think you miss the point of the book Kelvin. It’s meant to be a guide to listening to *all* sides of the debate, not just those you agree with. That’s what makes the last section so good, because it forces us to deal realistically not just with the genuine evidence on the causality of homosexuality, but also the fact that some people *do* see remarkable change in their sexual orientation (and that others don’t).

    I wrote my own review here.

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    We were not called by the last Lambeth Conference to listen to all sides in the debate.

    Reply
  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Ruth Gledhill has posted a PDF of the whole thing, for those interested:
    http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/files/Final.pdf

    Reply
  4. Rosemary Avatar
    Rosemary

    I’ve now read the ‘scientific’ section – thanks for the link ryan – and I thought it was mixed. I thought Glynn Harrison made a serious attempt at dispassion. I think it is a fair point that any person must decide their own priorities, and the final argument must be between theologies, not sciences. I was not so impressed by David de Pomerai – though one could hardly quarrel with his conclusion that we simply do not know exactly what makes one person homosexual and the next heterosexual. However his whole argument was bedevilled by assumptions that, e.g. homosexual men will be more effeminate than straight ones. Anecdotal evidence instantly produces examples where it is the straight male siblings who are drama queens and run from spiders, while gay ones take it all in their stride.

    It must be accepted that both gay and straight people live with voluntary or enforced celibacy with no ill effects – and that some people can change their sexual orientation and live happily with the change. What I found truly heart rending were the desperate attempts and the high cost to those who actually did succeed in changing orientation – however much Harrison denies the skin colour analogy, it reminded me painfully of those endless jars of skin lightener which encrust Sri Lankan chemists, where beauty is measured in skin tone. Because whether or not genetic, orientation is not a simple free choice. But I suppose the answer would be: ‘And what is?’

    The final point, though, is always the same. Is Christianity a religion of an authoritative book, or an authoritative Person?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Better well hung than ill wed…

    I’m feeling just a tad smug about my first new year prediction at this stage. Just saying. A hung parliament is what we need and its looking increasingly likely we are going to get it.

  • Register to Vote (Deadline TODAY!)

    Today is the last day to register to vote in the Upcoming General Election. I recorded an interview with the Beeb last week in which I said I never tell people how to vote, but I do encourage people to make sure that they do vote. If people like us don’t vote, other people will!…