• 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!

13 responses to “The Comites Christi – Gay Icons”

  1. John O'Leary Avatar
    John O’Leary

    Whether or not these people had sex with each other is unknowable and irrelevant. A gift that they offer to all, of whatever sexual persuasion, is the understanding that people of the same sex can have beautiful friendships marked by tender affection.

  2. Daniel Donaldson Avatar
    Daniel Donaldson

    Jesus had sex, he was human Afterall. I don’t like the way churches destroy the humanity of bible stories, making everyday life and seem dirty and disgusting (sex, being case in point ) replacing it with a self interpreted image of the divine. Maybe if the church recognised and embraced humanity, they would get more folk in the pews, instead of pushing them away.

    1. Jo Avatar
      Jo

      Not every human has sex during their lives. People have, by accident or design, remained chaste throughout their lives. We have no reason to believe that Jesus was married, and likewise we have no reason to suppose that he did have sex. All we have in this regard is an argument from silence. One would expect, however, that were he married it would have been his wife, as well as his mother, whom he commended to John’s care at his death.

      1. Daniel Donaldson Avatar
        Daniel Donaldson

        That’s a matter of debate. Some people can be chaste all their lives. I’m not comvinced that is the case with Jesus. The church likes to destroy humanity, make us feel guilty and dirty about being ourselves. If other heretical writings were allowed to survive, we may have a better account of the human side of Jesus.

        1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
          Rosemary Hannah

          Actually you would probably have a much more Gnostic Christ in the destroyed writings, other worldly and detailing the orders and hierarchy of angels. In fact the New Testament as we have it is kind to our physical nature, by and large. Whether Jesus was unmarried or widowed or gay we cannot know. We do know that he touched the ‘untouchable’ and was blamed for party going. It is enough to be going on with.

          1. Tiggy Avatar
            Tiggy

            I don’t like the implication in the comment above that someone has to have sex in order to be fully human. Maybe there are less people today who go their whole lives without having sex, but it was very common in the past and not always a choice, certainly for women. Were those people not fully human?

  3. Ann Fontaine Avatar

    Thanks Kelvin – tomorrow on Speaking to the Soul on the Café — Leslie Scoopmire writes about our wanting to know “what” rather than opening up to possibilities — asking “why”. Also are the images available for use?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      I was unable to identify the origins of the two icons. The middle one came from the wikipedia page on St John and is in the public domain.

  4. Pam Avatar
    Pam

    Thanks for this post. I enjoyed reading it very much. I tend to be a bit less reflective of Bible stories during Christmas days as my large family keeps me quite occupied – and we do live near the beach. I was reading Ruth 1 last night as it happens and I find the story of Ruth and Naomi to be one of love and fidelity. I don’t read their relationship as being of a sexual nature at all, my perspective. I also think black women and white women may read the Bible quite differently.

  5. Jaye Richards-Hill Avatar

    David and Ruth speak to me far more than the examples you draw in the blog post. Not so sure that Naomi and Ruth is all that far-fetched either. If literature reflects life,then why shouldn’t we look for examples of LGBT folk in scripture? It’s pretty much a given that they were there, after all?

  6. Kittredge Cherry Avatar

    I’m one of those lesbian people who gets excited about the same-sex love affirmed in the stories of Ruth & Naomi and David & Jonathan. In fact I blog about them and other “LGBT saints” (loosely defined” through Jesusinlove.org.

    I don’t disagree with your statement, “Instead of asking whether a given character in the bible ‘is gay’ those of us who read from that perspective would be better to ask of all the characters – what are you saying to our lives?”

    However I find that highlighting the same-sex love or “queer” people in the Bible helps catch the attention of LGBT people today who would otherwise ignore the Bible completely.

    Your description of the conversation about John the Beloved Disciple is amazing. I’ve engaged in conversations about this, but it never became anywhere near so detailed as what you describe.

    Today is the feast day for King David in some churches… another date to add to the gay comites Christi. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece, and happy New Year.

    You can find my LGBT saints series at:
    http://www.jesusinlove.org/saints.php

  7. Kate Odling Avatar
    Kate Odling

    I found this interesting. Both Stephen & John were quiet, “soft” men who were sympathetic to people who needed help, I think. There are many gay & straight people who are like them. They are the quiet ones who get on with doing good deeds. I think everyone can appreciate their love

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…