• 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!

8 responses to “Easter Sermon 2016”

  1. Julia Avatar
    Julia

    God’s here with us all the time. If he rises or not, He’s always with us anyway.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks David – edited now. I don’t know how that happened.

  2. Meg Rosenfeld Avatar
    Meg Rosenfeld

    Cheer up. At least you don’t have to walk all the way to Emmaeus this afternoon and then run all the way back to Jerusalem. Wonder and amazement can be pretty exhausting, but they’re well worth the stress.

    The Lord is risen! Alleluia!

  3. Keith Barber Avatar
    Keith Barber

    I can only see as far as the beginning of the reference to Brussels… hope the Border hasn’t been closed to Kelvin’s thoughts!

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Should be sorted now.

      1. Keith Barber Avatar
        Keith Barber

        Thank you… inspiring as always.

  4. Alex Staton Avatar
    Alex Staton

    Hi Kelvin, thanks for posting this – particularly since I hadn’t the stamina for the 10.30 service after the Vigil. I could blame ‘that Graeme’ as my mother calls my partner in reluctant recognition he’s here to stay 😂. You’ll be knackered. I hope you managed to relax this week without needing to console yourself with too many pickled eggs.

    Last week certainly saw more than its fair share of tragedy. Unfortunately we’ve become somewhat used to terrorist attacks. I think many in both the Muslim and wider community found Mr Shah’s murder in particular absolutely devastating. It’s difficult to see how to make sense of it or to see how the message of Easter speaks to such wickedness and tragedy. I found the points you made at the end of your sermon encouraging. Christ is risen in the lives of those that bring to love of Christ where hatred is present, challenging the prejudice, working for interfaith initiatives, supporting the marginalised.

    I was interested in your earlier comments and the turn of phrase you use. I think I know what you’re getting and I uderstand the sentiment behind the words it is easy to believe Christ will never rise from the dead. Im sure that was the experience of the disciples on that first Good Friday. Still, could you say a little more about why you use the future tense throughout the first part of your sermon.

    Best

    Alex

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…