• 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 “Alternative Queen’s Speech”

  1. Pluralist Avatar

    They are only in office for a year. Then the Lib Dems will collapse, the Conservatives lose out to UKIP, Labour will also lose out to UKIP, but should, I hope, win if only to produce a luke-warm left government that will continue to bully those on benefits.

  2. Revruth Avatar

    Jolly good. May we also have fairtrade bananas sold loose instead of bags of 6 or 8, please?

  3. Elizabeth Avatar
    Elizabeth

    Hear, hear!!

    Ruth – you can find such loose and fair bananas in many fine emporia in this fair city of Glasgow. Do come visit soon!

  4. Alan McManus Avatar

    Kelvin, on the point of privacy, after being forced to opt-out (probably too late) from having my address (and perhaps email and telephone information) sold to anyone by Glasgow City Council, I’ve just sent the email below to Hugh Munro the Chartered Accountant who is Electoral Registration Officer for GCC. It strikes me that roll-calling in the Bible is usually A Bad Thing and in this case it quite obviously is. As Rosemary H. pointed out (in the middle of a rather heated debate on the Referendum – where she was very restrained and others including me were not) the problem with devolving power to Local Authorities is that they have to be both competent and ethical (my paraphrase, I can’t re-find her exact words).

    On Monday, 3 November 2014, 12:53, Alan McManus:

    Dear Mr Munro,

    I have just opted out of the Open Electoral Register by email, something which I should not have had to do. You, or whoever has executed this scheme, had no authority to sell my contact information and in doing so you, or they, have abused my trust. I expect a signed apology in writing and that this scheme be terminated with immediate effect.You are well aware that you are preying on the trust of the elderly who have no access to the internet and who will be too confused by this betrayal of confidence by their Local Authority to take action by telephone. You have sold the rights of privacy of the citizens of Glasgow for material gain. This is despicable and does nothing to ameliorate the legacy of the low reputation of the leadership of GCC.

    regards, Dr Alan McManus

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…