• 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!

4 responses to “Church Times Adverts”

  1.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Church Times Adverts
    Isn’t that what most of us are working for? A home with a view, whether it be in this life or the next. If I can get that, I’ll consider myself fortunate indeed! 🙂

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Church Times Adverts
    No Annie, I don’t agree! I think that what Kelvin is getting at is tht these positions are exploiting elderly clergy who have little income and who have had no chance to buy a property because of church rules.

    A good view is no recompense in retirement if you havnt got a proper income and have to resort to this kind of job to make ends meet and keep a roof over your head.

    These “house for duty” positions are a way of getting ministry on the cheap. Clergy poverty in old age is likely to get even worse in coming years.

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Church Times Adverts
    I’m sorry. I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I know what Kelvin was getting at and it is wrong for the church to exploit anyone. I believe that there are lots of people who are doing God’s work who are not all employed by the church, but are none the less in jobs that are “ministering” to others and that these jobs are often ones which give little monetary compensation. However simplistic it might sound, I happen to believe that God does provide for his children, even down to food, clothing, and shelter. Too often we don’t believe that what He provides is good enough when in reality it is always the best – meaning it is always the best for us, just what we need to become closer to Him. I don’t say any of this lightly. It’s something I’ve learned from experience and something I’m continuing to learn. I’m not sure I’m expressing my thoughts very coherently. George MacDonald says it much better in his book “What’s Mine’s Mine”. I didn’t mean to offend, criticize, chatise or preach. I only wanted to encourage. Kelvin appears to have a God given passion for activism and fighting for others. I admire that! I only wanted to encourage him with a reminder that God doesn’t forget us or our needs and wants. He uses them to draw us nearer to him. Also, when people and their institutions, religious and political, let us down – He never will.

  4.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Re: Church Times Adverts
    Peace be with you!

    Simon – stop shouting at people.

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…