• Good Friday Preaching – The Servant Girl

     

    The truth is, I only really noticed her on Sunday. I’ve never payed her the blindest bit of attention before.

    I guess no-one ever did.

    The servant girl who answered Peter back. She’s a woman in John’s gospel but a servant girl in the version that Matthew and Cedric were watching on Sunday. There’s more detail there too.

    Peter warms himself by the fire. Cold. Human. Miserable.

    She sees him and simply says, “You were with Jesus the man from Nazareth”.

    He says no.

    She says, “yes you were.”

    He denies it again.

    A third time, “But you are a Galilean”

    Scripture rather euphemistically says that Peter began to curse and swear an oath and said, “I do not know this man you are talking about”.

    I think it is important not to mistake what is going on here.

    Three times she says – you were with that Jesus.

    And Peter’s response is, “Look you, fuck off! I didn’t know the man you are talking about at all”

    That’s what scripture tells us happened.

    And then the cock crows.

    And I’ve preached on Peter on Good Friday plenty of times. And I’ve preached on the cock crowing. The triple betrayal. The cock. The shame of it all for Peter.

    But I’ve never really noticed her.

    Until this time.

    You always notice something or someone new when you come to the passion again.

    This time for me it was her. The servant girl. The one who spoke up, spoke clearly and spoke the truth.

    And we don’t know her name.

    There is a, perhaps rather fanciful, tradition about names in the New Testament. There’s all kinds of small bit parts in the gospels and in Acts – people who appear and disappear rather suddenly. Simon of Cyrene is an obvious example in the passion. The tradition is that those whose names we know from scripture are probably people who found faith and became part of the early Jesus movement that was to become the church. There’s some sense to it. If they joined the movement they would be known by those who collected the gospel stories. They would still been around. In the case of Simon of Cyrene, we even know the names of his sons – surely he had contact with the early church if they were all remembered by name.

    But this servant girl is one of those who appear with something very significant to say but whose names go unrecorded.

    Looks like she never joined the movement and probably was never much taken seriously by anyone at the time.

    But she speaks the truth and we should listen very carefully to what she says.

    She speaks the truth to Peter even in the face of his shame and betrayal of all the love and values that he once professed.

    Ever meet this servant girl?

    She was around at the recent investigations into child sexual abuse in the church.

    I don’t remember her name but there she was giving testimony against all kinds of be-dogcollared bigwigs.

    Her testimony can be summed up easily:

    “You knew Jesus? You knew this to be wrong? Why didn’t you do something?”

    And she made those bigwigs wriggle with shame.

    The servant girl in the courtyard with Peter speaks truth to power. She persistently calls out his lies.

    She is a better priest than Caiaphas. She is a better judge than Pilate. She knows right from wrong. She knows she is being lied to and she says so.

    And Peter – yes, that’s Peter, the rock on which the church was built has no answer.

    I still don’t know her name, and I’m not sure she wants to have much to do with the church anyway but I’m sure I’ve started to hear her voice more often recently.

    The woman in the courtyard accusing Peter.

    I hear her speaking truth to power.

    I see her holding up slogans demanding gun control following a shooting in her school.

    I was there she says. I know what really happened. I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears.

    “You knew that man Jesus didn’t you and yet you ran away when he was vulnerable and in trouble”.

    I know not her name but I hear her speaking out about abuse in the world of showbiz, the world of politics, the world of religion.

    And she speaks the truth.

    She knows that those in power, no let’s name it – men in power will wriggle when trouble comes and try to cover their backs. Try to say – I was not there. I didn’t see it. I knew nothing about what was going on.

    The darkness of the courtyard, Peter stands warming his hands by the brazier and the light of the fire causes her to see the badge he is wearing that no-one else can see which says plainly – “It wisnae me”

    She she’s fooled by nothing.

    She knows that cheating is wrong in business, or education or relationships. She knows that abuse is wrong in the classroom, on the sportsfield or in clergy training programmes. She knows that in this world in which everyone has an opinion, there’s still such a thing as truth. Black and while truth.

    She knows what’s what and she has found her own voice. And she speaks the truth.

    I found myself on Sunday listening to the passion and asking myself why I’ve never heard her voice before.

    But I’ve never heard it because I’m part of the system too.

    Patriarchy is the system that we all find ourselves negotiating and most of us find ourselves making deals and compromises with patriarchy. And voices go unheard.

    Are things changing.

    Is the servant girl – no let’s call her a woman, is the woman in the courtyard finally being heard?

    I don’t think we can know yet.

    But I do know she’s finding her voice. I do know she’s speaking truth to power. I do know also that the powerful are going to put up quite a fight to shut her up.

    But she looks into that patriarchal world and she calls us to live by the company that we have kept with Christ.

    Love is both the goal and the weapon. Love is the destination and love is on the horizon but love is the weapon by which we nip away at patriarchal assumptions, rules and systems.

    She knows the truth, does the woman in the courtyard. And this is her time.

    Who needs a crowing cock.

    These days she posts on twitter.

    And she uses the hashtag #metoo.

13 responses to “Peter Tatchell on Outing Bishops”

  1. Ann Avatar

    I agree — as The Rt Rev. Barbara Harris says, “it is okay to be in the closet as long as you are not using it as a machine gun nest”

  2. Erika Baker Avatar
    Erika Baker

    While the CoE policy is completely crazy and homophobic, it is consistent in itself.
    Gay sexual relationships are not permitted for clergy.
    So the official line is that all CP’s clergy follow this rule – and who knows, some may actually follow it! Stranger things have happened!

    But marriage is different because it is defined as a sexual relationship (and the Alice in Wonderland “I am not seeing reality” ignores marriages between people who cannot or do not want to have sex).
    And so no amount of looking elsewhere can distract from the fact that your married gay priest is not celibate.

    That’s the faultline.
    And outing non-married gay bishops, partnered or not, does not touch this.
    They can all to a man say that they are following church policy.

    1. Stephen Peters Avatar
      Stephen Peters

      Yes, Erica. But somehow, and more hugely, no. That Gay Bishops hide and allow gay clergy to be demonised on any front, is just not on. Church Policy or no = They should be working to change this appalling policy, not supporting it to harm the lives of truly loving couples.

    2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      The whole insane situation is made more invidious by the fact that one of the arguments trotted out against marriage between people of the same gender is that they could not (in the eyes of some detractors) actually have sex. Sex was, to these people, certain acts and certain acts alone. I suspect the same arguments pertain in the HoB and that people in partnerships with another of their own gender can make what is, in the eyes of the HoB, a perfectly valid case they are not ‘having sex’ with their partner.

      The situation is nuts, perfectly nuts. The answer is for straight people, and for celibate people, who have the least to lose, to stand up, and shout. The higher up the ecclesiastical tree they are, the more important it is that they do this.

  3. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Both Erika and Stephen make fair points. As I see things, those who scramble for scripture to justify treating people as second class citizens in a way that trench troops scramble for the last round of ammunition as the “enemy” marches inexorably
    forward, will view outing as inflammatory.
    If anything, this could widen the schism. Could this fracture the C of E in a way that women’s rights threatened to? As the breath of equality, dignity and fairness dominates the secular world and is very much present in many hidden corners of the church, possibly so. It could certainly further damage the church’s membership.
    If these are possibilities then perhaps the church’s leaders might be forced to discuss this in the open should outing occur. I remain sceptical that fundamentalists will cast aside their theological guns as it were, but the church will be a healthier place for having open and honest debate and reflection- and action. I’d rather see a reduced sized church that is founded on fairness and honesty rather than a larger body that hides behind the armour of theological confusion and hypocrisy on this issue.
    I’m saddened to reflect that I don’t believe that the main church will countenance or confer equality and dignity. Whatever the cost. Hopefully, I might be wrong.

  4. Dennis Avatar
    Dennis

    When you go outing an anti-equality CofE bishop be prepared for all sorts of ugly hate filled email. I saved a few of the nicer responses just because they were so amazingly horrible. A couple of emails were frightening and a right wing Anglican blog tracked down and posted my work contact information. Six and a half years later I still get sick at my stomach thinking about it. And honestly it has no impact on anyone other than the now out-of-the-closet bishop who will lie and deny deny deny. Do it but be prepared for an ugly situation on your hands.

  5. James Byron Avatar
    James Byron

    What’s to be gained? The ’90s mass-outing did nothing to change the church’s homophobic trajectory, and I doubt a repeat would do an any better. Either the bishop will refuse to comment, and the story dies; or they admit it, and are forced to resign. It could backfire hugely, making the people doing the outing look vindictive. Many traditionalists would sympathize with the outed bishops.

    Besides, what makes people think there’s any gay English bishops to out? Everything I’ve seen to date has been rumor and innuendo, usually nudge-nudge comments about Anglo-Catholics with a love of white port and vestments.

    The problem is, at heart, economic: rich evangelical parishes could bankrupt the church overnight if they chose. A handful of bishops can’t change that. Instead, open evangelicals need to be convinced to change their minds. Any fight for equal rights that isn’t supported by people like Ian Paul, N.T. Wright, Graham Kings and Nicky Gumbel will go nowhere.

  6. Peter Ould Avatar
    Peter Ould

    From the conservative side, if you’re going to out anybody, out them because they’re being hypocrites. There is nothing to be gained from outing men who have been sexually active in the past but are not any longer, or who have always been celibate. But if there are members of the House of Bishops who are sexually active with someone of the same sex, outing them is less to do with homosexuality and more to do with hypocrisy. It is unacceptable in any line of business to demand one thing of your staff and then to do the exact opposite yourself.

    Of course, what will happen in practice is that men will be named who are celibate, or who have repented of previous sexual activity and this will just backfire, because it will be seen to be vindictive and nothing more. As far as I know, there are no hypocrites in the House of Bishops on this issue, but please do correct me if you have any knowledge to the contrary.

  7. Fr Steve Avatar

    It seems difficult to justify perpetrating one sin towards another on the basis of the fact they themselves have perpetrated an act of sin(hypocritical abuse of power). This doesn’t seem to me like the Jesus who stood before Pontius Pilate.
    We may ask ourselves what then do you do?….do we really gain anything by not just fighting sin with sin. But by promoting sin (outing)…for surely such it is! We do nothing to advance the cause of justice.

  8. Kelvin Avatar

    It is not my view that we can derive our ethics from scripture – for that reason, I’m a little hesitant about the comparison with Jesus standing before Pontius Pilate.

    There are quite a lot of examples, I think, when Jesus did speak directly about hypocrisy.

    There’s also Nathan the prophet confronting David over Bathsheba.

    None of these proves anything – scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another. It is worth noting though that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.

  9. Fr Steve Avatar

    Was very mindful Kelvin of these examples when jesus was confrontationist…..but outing is just horrible

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      We are in a horrible situation. Yes.

  10. Fr Steve Avatar

    I don’t actually agree with the statement “scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another”
    but do understand the complexity of: ‘that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.’
    At Mass yesterday (my first in my new parish: stmarymags125.blogspot.com.au)
    I was harangued by a parishioner who objected to the fact that I had told the congregation that ABM-A (Australian Church’s Missionary Agency) has launched a campaign for funds for Gaza
    She told me, as rightists do….that all Palestinians are wrong!….didn’t seem to know that most Anglicans in the Holy Lands are Arabs of Palestinian origin.
    She obviously hadn’t heard my first sermon …that catholic means universal and that our God & Jesus loves everyone! That is what ‘universal’ means.
    The Church is just awful…hypocritical yet loved by God…just as She loves those who are different from us.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • Our newest priest

    Great to be with Kate Reynolds as she was priested today in Old St Paul’s. Congratulations to her and to the congregation.

  • Friday Reading List

    Here are the most interesting things I’ve read this week. Kids can’t use computers – The plaintive cry of someone who can. due for revision – Kimberly Bohan riff off the ten commandments and asks what we should really be teaching people Rowan Williams wonders whether it could all have been different.

  • Let’s hear it for Our Lady. (And for J Paul Getty)

    Let’s hear it for our Lady on this the Feast of the Assumption. Here’s a gorgous pic of her being crowned in heaven. And, let’s hear it for the J Paul Getty museum which has just decided to make a very significant collection of images, including the one above, available under an Open Content Programme.…

  • Fidelio – Opera de Lyon – Edinburgh International Festival

    This review should appear at Opera Britannia in due course. Star Date: 12 August 2013 Festival Theatre, Edinburgh Rating: There are many areas of human endeavour where we must applaud glorious failure. Better, surely, that risks are taken than that we make do forever with the urbane and the familiar. The trouble is, when it…