• 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!

3 responses to “St Andrew's Day”

  1.  Avatar
    Kelvin

    Re: St Andrew’s Day
    Loved the service tonight Kelvin. Thankyou.  Would be good to have more folky things like you used to!  Enjoyed Highland Cathedral.

    When will you take your congregation to Perth Cathedral?
    Some haven't been for a very long time and some have never been!

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: St Andrew’s Day
    Thank you for the comments. I enjoyed last night’s service a lot too.

    There is not a huge amount going on at the cathedral to invite people to at the moment. The last thing that members of St Saviour’s joined in with was the farewell to Bishop Michael Henley in the summer. The choir sang at that service and one or two other people came to it too.

    I’ve always been aware that I was once one of the cathedral clergy. I would not want people to think that I was trying to emulate a cathedral in St Saviour’s. (There is no chance anyway, it is very different indeed – the choir and the music are so much better in Bridge of Allan). I’m also wary that going back a lot to a place that you have been in before can be unhelpful to the former congregation.

    The next big thing at St Ninian’s, Perth will be the consecration of the new bishop on 2 March 2005. I’ve no idea how they will allocate tickets for that – perhaps some of them will come our way.

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: St Andrew’s Day
    Oddly, I was thinking about the cathedral earlier this week. When I was little there was quite a lot happening for churches in the diocese to attend and I had the opportunity to go a few times to be part of joint fun days etc. We even had the opportunity to sleep over once or twice which was great fun.

    Admittedly this was a long time ago and things have generally changed but it is very good for congregations to mix and join up. It has always made me feel as much a part/member of St.Ninians as St. Saviours although I haven’t been there now for a long time

    I wouldn’t imagine people would asscoiate you overly with the cathedral either, you’ve been in BofA long enough for that not to be an issue. This isn’t really leading anywhere in particaulr but it would be good to see more happening at the cathedral that ‘normal’ people could be a part of in one way or another

    (and I enjoyed the folky thing too, definitely more please!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Previous Posts

  • No sermon today

    No sermon today. This year was my last year of a four year term o­n the General Synod. It is the first when I have managed it all well – stayed in a hotel in Edinburgh instead of going backwards and forwards every day and have also arranged for someone else to preach today, so…

  • General Synod

    I’m back from the General Synod in Edinburgh. I think that of the four years that I have been there, I probably enjoyed this one more than I have before. The business was not that heavy. Here are the headlines. We decided, in an over-emotional debate to loan money to a Retirement Home and authorised…