• Bathsheba, our Sister

    Here’s the sermon I preached on Bathsheba on 27 June 2015

    Sermon preached by Kelvin Holdsworth on 26 July 2015

    It so happens that later today I’m going to be on the television in a short slot on Songs of Praise. Blink and you’ll miss me – it won’t be long.

    From time to time I get the chance to be on both television and radio. And I’ve learned to treat them very differently and prepare what I have to say to suit the medium.

    Generally speaking, I really like doing radio work because, as people often say, the pictures on the radio are far better.

    Its true. Radio is about painting pictures and television is about telling stories.

    And I think Radio and Preaching are very similar, which is why my preaching is very visual. My aim is to get you to see things in your head as I’m speaking.

    And so I find today my own gaze turning over to my left as I look amongst the high windows of the church for one of the protagonists of the Old Testament story which is what I’m going to preach about today.

    For every day, he catches my gaze when I’m over there saying morning prayer and you can’t see him from where you are, so this is going to be like radio with me describing him.

    As I recite the psalms at Morning Prayer, as often as not, I’m looking up at him. David in Stained Glass. High and mighty. Bearded and wise. Colourful. Powerful. Present.

    He’s a familiarly figure to me. As I recite God’s praises using words that he himself wrote, I have him directly in view, God bless him.

    King. Poet. Warrior. And downright naughty but do utterly beloved rogue.

    He’s a complex character. Though peaceful in stained glass. He is portrayed playing the lyre he made music with as a younger man in order to calm King Saul’s insane rages.

    He concentrates on his lyre. Making music. As I look at him I wonder who he makes music for now. For Saul? For Michal his first love. For Jonathan his great love? For Bathsheba his great…. Well, what was it? Was it love? I’m not so sure.

    And as he makes his music up there in stained glass I fancy him hearing us reciting his psalms down below.

    As I gaze up and him, I imagine him gazing down at me.

    But as I look in his direction, I see him dropping the lyre and transported. Transported out of the stained glass and standing on a balcony on a rooftop.

    And he’s not looking down at me, he’s looking down at someone else entirely. Yes. Bathsheba on her own roof taking what she suspects is a private bath.

    And we’ll leave him there for a moment. Gazing. Desiring. Lusting after another man’s wife.

    And we’ll think about her.

    It suddenly occurred to me on Friday that though I’m relatively used to seeing David depicted in stained glass, it is at least interesting that we don’t have a corresponding picture of her. She’s a significant figure in her own right in the events that were to follow today’s story.

    Is it, I wondered, that we are prepared to forgive him in our collective memory and put him in stained glass simply because he is a man. She, the floosy, not so much.

    I’m not sure.

    Anyway, on Friday morning, I decided to take a look around the known world for Bathsheba and see if I could work out what she looked like. Now, google has an image search these days. You put in a search term and instead of giving you links, it gives you pictures.

    So, into the search box, I typed Bathsheba’s name and pressed the button and immediately was taken aback by what I saw.

    Immediately, I encountered the flesh.

    Picture after picture of a rather voluptuous figure.

    Breasts bare. Rising from baths, fountains, bathing ponds.

    Curiously, she seemed rather pale and western looking. I fancy that her peely wally skin wouldn’t survive terribly long on the beach at Saltcoats, never mind on the rooftops of Jerusalem.

    But the overwhelming impression was the sheer amount of bare flesh.

    And somewhere in most of the pictures, King David casting a sly eye over what was on offer to him in the heat of the day.

    My mind boggled at the ogling. It was as though google had suddenly become booble.

    And I realised in an instant that we are very used to reading the story of Bathsheba from King David’s point of view.

    We are used to reading the story of Bathsheba from King Patriarchy’s point of view. Where women are to be goggled at and ogled at. And owned and taken and possessed.

    As I looked at all these medieval manuscripts and more recent paintings containing all these naked Bathshebas I realised that I was seeing transmission of the male gaze through time.

    So many monks in scriptoriums painting saucy Bathsheba in the margins and passing the books down from one to another through the ages. What fantasies she must have conjured up just from reading the story.

    And remember we had a story a couple of weeks ago of David leaping about in the dance and losing his clothes. But guess what, there are far more bare Bathshebas in the manuscripts and far, far fewer naked Davids.

    Women and men are not equal in our tradition.

    And once you see such inequality you can start to make the tradition change. (Because that’s what traditions do – they change surprisingly often when people want them to).

    I’ve often said that that by a long way, the greatest change that the Scottish Episcopal Church has made in relation to marriage was to produce a liturgy a few years ago where the two participants were equals. A man and a woman getting married in our modern tradition are married as equals and it is a huge lurch away not only from biblical tradition and Victorian traditions of human relationships with which I sometimes think we are obsessed.

    This morning’s gospel was the story of the feeding of the five thousand. Well, I think it was the story of the feeding of the five thousand and one. Or five thousand and two. Or five thousand and three.

    For what it is trying to tell us is that there is always room for another at the picnic.

    (And that’s a metaphor for heaven by the way).

    As we re-read the stories of old, we need to read them from different perspectives and I want you to try to read the story from Bathsheba’s point of view this morning.

    Manipulated by a powerful man who then murdered her husband in order to take control of her. And then ogled through the ages by churchmen who should have known better.

    We must listen to her, for women are trafficked seemingly more and more. Too many are treated as things rather than people because they don’t measure up to the false expectations of patriarchy. Those with power in their hands still refuse to help us build a world based on fairness and human dignity for everyone.

    So, I invite you to think again about Bathsheba. Let her prompt your prayers this week. There’s room for her at the heavenly picnic. And it is time her experience is listened to.

    And in case you were wondering, there’s room for you too.

    Amen.

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

  • Bishop Kevin discusses the Indaba process

    Bishop Kevin -he says indaba means meeting together for purposeful discussion. We will go into groups during the Mission and Ministry session. We will discuss things that the Mission and Ministry Board have laid before us. Then later, we will do the same to discuss the Covenant.

  • Information and Communication Board

    I present a brief report and tell synod that the Board is looking at commissioning new website templates which congregations could download freely and use.

  • Motion 7

    A canonical change to allow greater flexibilty to bishops in appointing clergy. Motion carried.