Yesterday, I took a communion service in a different church, as the incumbent is at General Synod debating whether to have Women Bishops. As I drove to the church I remembered that the last time that I'd been in the building had been during a service to welcome him, and then I suddenly remembered that in addition to my own Bishop being there, the Flying Bishop (Bishop for those who can't accept women's ministry) had been present. Had a women celebrated at that Altar before???
I took the service feeling a bit inadequate somehow. The sermon seemed to go down ok. Then it came to communion. I had a bit of a panic, thinking some people wouldn't come to receive from me, but then realised it was just that they didn't line up in their church, and they were waiting in their pews for the Altar Rail to become clear of the last lot. Everyone received. I was SO thankful.
Why do I care? Well because a priest is such a big part of who I am and a rejection of my ministry is a rejection of me. I was judged by some for becoming a priest (when I should have been looking after my husband and children). Christians scare me a little with their judging.
At the door to the church, as the people filed out, they were enthusiastic about the service and the sermon, and I was touched by their kindness. And then one said:
'You have made history, you know'
'Have I?' (Oh dear - is that good or bad?)
'No woman has celebrated here before'
'Errr... oh... really?' (Oh no - does she think that is bad?)
'I've never known it before, and I thought it was wonderful. Whatever happens at Synod I think this is a good sign'.
And with that she went. And I drove home feeling strangely honoured and very encouraged by that small congregation who meet at 8am to say a service written in 1662. (Must say it is hard to get my teeth round all the strange words at that time in the morning).
We can accommodate a lot of things in the church - those who like the 1662 service and those who don't, those who believe in the virgin birth and those who don't. Those who pray to saints and those who don't. I like very much that we have a broad church.
However, with the things to do with governance, we have to simply agree and live with them. We can't have those who like having Bishops and those who think we should be congregationalist. We can't have those who will accept the ministry of black people and those who won't. And we need to have either no women in positions of authority at all, or women's ministry completely accepted. My experience is that the fudge is horrible, and if I felt that it would end up as institutionalised inequality then I would have to go and do something else. I am rejected as a woman priest occasionally, and although it hurts, that is ok. However, what we have at the moment, institutionalised in our statutes, is a form of apartheid, a feeling that I can taint things, just by being a woman priest, and it isn't tenable for me.
I am praying that we might have grace, we might trust each other and God, and that we might stop judging quite so much. I am praying that in the church we might have life, and life abundantly.
18 comments:
Go, Lesley! I remember from 1993+ people actually experiencing women in ordained ministry and discovering there's nothing to it. For most people this is very much about treading on the cracks in the pavement and discovering you don't get eaten by bears... moments of grace and hope do happen,
I know we have to live together. I know we have to be careful what we say, so that we don't cause unnecessary pain.
But Lesley, it's just possible that they're not simply rejecting you. They might even be rejecting the One who sent you.
Blessings, Kevin
I've had similar experiences since my ordination 10 years ago, mostly encouraging. It feels both a huge privilege and slightly frightening responsibility, fearing some may judge all women priests according to a single experience of one at one service. The current 'fudge' is painful and not just for priests who happen to be female.
well said that woman!
(and glad the service went well...)
red xx
Hi Lesley,
The broadness of the church is not a sign of its merit, it's a weakness that sweeps serious issues under the carpet. What may internally look like a reasonable compromise is nothing more than a laughable cop-out, an appeasement of the bigots.
The bigotry and hypocrisy is plain for everyone to see. These sexist issues are to be expected from paternal religions, and Christianity is just as paternalistic as any. Jesus is often claimed to have ushered in a new religion that speaks for everyone (whether he intended to or not). Well, either it does speak for everyone or it doesn't, and to be exclusive in any respect means it doesn't.
Common sense and compassion are human traits, along with bigotry and hypocrisy. It's up to us to choose which way we go. I guess some Christian traditionalist haven't figured that out yet - they think what was the tradition 2000 years ago has to be the case today, or that because Jesus arbitrarily did something or other that has to be copied too (I bet you're all glad Jesus didn't go in for wearing yellow underpants on his head). Whether it's because Jesus had only male disciples, or based on Timothy 2:12, or whatever the 'excuse' may be, Christians cherry pick the degree to which scriptures are followed based on their current cultural and personal prejudices - hence the continuous spectrum of belief: you all choose which bits of the fantasy you want to hold to be true.
I hope that one day reasonable theists who, other than belief in a personal God, have a basically humanist outlook, will decide to throw their cards in with humanists and other reasonable atheists, rather than trying to sustain a relationship with some of the ridiculous believers who use their faith to discriminate, whether it's against atheists, other faiths, or, as in this case, people within their own faith. Is this how you want your faith to be seen? At times Christianity seems to be a most un-Christian religion.
Bishop Alan Wilson said, "Go, Lesley! I remember from 1993..." - 2000 years and you're only just dealing with these inequalities?
Kevin Scott said, "I know we have to live together. I know we have to be careful what we say, so that we don't cause unnecessary pain." - Isn't it because you are being too careful in what you say that this rediculous 'compromise' has been in place for so long? Christians so often claim their religion speaks out against injustice. It's about time you who believe in justice took that to heart. You're so afraid if a split; you seem to fear more for the existence of the church rather than its principles. I'm often told how Christians are prepared to die for their belief. Is the church? How can you live with this injustice?
At least some are prepared to speak out. Keep it up Lesley. You know I think you're bonkers in believing some of this stuff :), but you express more honesty in publicly questioning your beliefs than most Christians I've come across.
Wow, thanks for your kind comments.
Ron, I find it hard to argue with you because generally I agree with most of what you say.
I think being a broad church represents a humility that we don't know the mind of God, we just see glimpses, and that perhaps another person with a different view understands something that I don't.
I think unity is important to Christians because we see loving one another as our highest calling. And unity, or community, whilst accepting difference feels like the best way to express that. Of course I (and I suppose all Christians) include loving women and homosexuals in that calling. Some believe that in loving others it is acceptable and important to map out women's sphere and condemn homosexual sex. For me I question what their understanding of 'Do not Judge' is (genuine question).
I guess you're stuck looking for a compromise then. Well, in the spirit of inclusion and inter-faith co-operation, how about giving this some thought - perhaps there's something to be learned from Islam after all; and on that basis I'm sure the ABC would consider it. Is there some way CoE female bishops could be accommodated by adapting the communion is some way? Does it have to be wine? If female priests and bishops served milk inestead of wine, to symbolise an offering from the virgin Mary? Or is this a little to RC for CoE tastes?
Mmmm.. I could see it having a draw to some but overall I don't think it would carry at Synod!
My take on this is on my blog, but basically I agree with you, and I'm glad you said it. Welldoenfor taking the service and gently dissolving another boundary.
Lesley
It is obvious - not least from this blog post - that you are "a good sign" for all sorts of reasons! :-D
Ron, are you okay today? You seem to be leaping in with some uncharacteristic prejudice in seeming to want to paint all those with a principled opposition to women-as-bishops as bigots.
We've not been here for all of the 2000 years. Yes there are problems, but we've only been here for a handful of decades each and there are PITA problems with working within a large and diverse inherited institution. Some of its members are engaged in minding the gap at the various levels of church life. In my (limited) experience operating outside of institutions just has a different set of problems, to which trying to live together in difference is preferable in many ways.
Anyway, we're not looking at roasting each other alive over this, so there has been some progress over the past five hundred years. We may even get over the whole Constantine/Augustine cock ups (!) at some point this millennium.
Thank-you Chris - that is really kind.
I think Ron is always spoiling for a fight Jonathan (a different one) :)
Hi Helegant,
Interesting article from JSP, part of which you respond with, "I would moderate her statement slightly (!) by saying that I personally want the kind of church that God wants, this is of course the crux of the issue; we all want the kind of church that God wants, and we all think it is something different." - More to the point, you all want the kind of God that you each want, and you all think he is something different; and therein lies your unity. Odd.
Hi Jonathan,
I appreciate that as individuals we are here for a short time, but one of the benefits of the scientific outlook is to learn from advances made by others, so that there is gradual progress. Religious dogmatism, which is what the conservative issue appears to be on women and gay bishops, appears to be more satisfied with sticking with tradition at the expense of the vocation of those that don't conform to the requirements of the tradition. The difference in this case and that of any strict biblical literalist is surely just a matter of degree - there are some scriptural points will not be let go.
I'm not sure of the data here, but I get the drift that the majority of the church are in favour of a more liberal approach, but that they have been tolerant of a strident vocal conservative minority and have appeased them. It seems like the conservative minority are holding the church to ransom. Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. How does that not fit the conservatives?
I can't see why you don't just stick to your guns and let the church split. Will you miss them? Weren't you glad to see the back of Ann Widecombe, and then again when Tony Blair signed his transfer. These are not great losses. You would make far more liberal progress without them. If unity was so important the CoE would have merged with the RC church long ago - you're all Christians after all.
But is it about unity for any commendable reason? Or is it a fear of what the breakup would bring. It's tolerable for one or two notables to swan off to the dark side, but a real split, what would that mean for the political power of the CoE both in the UK and as the leader of the Anglican Communion?
Hi Ron,
As you indicate with your "matter of degree" we're operating with a spectrum here, albeit a complex multidimensional one.
Holding A and non-A in tension can be difficult work, but with suitable tension spreading devices that can become productive tension.
Holding A and anti-A in tension can become unsustainable and damaging. Especially when either A or Anti-A is either inherently a Bad Thing™ or the environment has shifted to make it so.
It's not a simple matter of logical tweezing though. There are real people with real and complex lives who have arrived together at this point and as the bard said "breaking up ain't easy".
People have been sticking to their consciences, and the results are painful all round, even for the "winners". See, for example, http://dodgyliberal.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-next-day.html
Holding to any position does tend to mean that I believe it to be true, not false, and that other positions which hold my position to be false to be false. Does the holding of something to be true of necessity make me bigoted?
The blanket writing off of conservative Christians (or anyone else) as hypocritical bigots contains at least a germ of delicious irony :)
There seems to be a lot of projection of keeping it together at all costs on to the situation. See for example the last couple of paras of these comments from Williams.
I'd continue with this comment, but I'm late for work, so that's it for now.
Hi Jonathan,
From your first link, "...the compromise would allow people to stay together who would otherwise have parted, it was worth doing." - Why? There are often associations that simply stop working, or which might provide opportunity for real progress by separation. Sometimes divorce is the not just a least bad option, but a good one. It needn't be a hostile one.
"Does the holding of something to be true of necessity make me bigoted?" - Not sure what 'necessity' qualifies: 'to be true of necessity' or 'of necessity make me bigoted'.
If the former, then the fact that one holds a belief true of necessity cuts no ice with those that don't hold it to be true, and so the charge of bigotry depends on the what it is one holds to and what it is held against.
If the latter, then not bigoted necessarily, but possibly, depending on the stance one takes and the issue: in this case if theological dogmatism overrides what most think of as equalities, even as equal rights, then yes, bigoted, since that seems to fit the definition.
"The blanket writing off..." - No one is writing them off as outcasts of society. I have a RC neighbour on one side and Quaker on the other, and we get along just fine, but have very different views of what's right and wrong in our beliefs. In the context of CoE I'm simply saying that both parties might do better separately. I would obviously have a bias that sees my views closer to those of the more liberal, since their convictions are closer to the humanistic ones that I work with.
"...conservative Christians (or anyone else) as hypocritical bigots..." - I don't see how that charge can be avoided. There is hypocrisy that
What do you [question open to anyone] believe to be the benefit, the point, of remaining united?
Sorry Ron, that was ambiguous of me. I meant the latter of your two interpretations.
I can't see why holding an anti-women's ordination position *has* to be associated with doing so in a manner which is intolerant of other's beliefs.
Since there's been a clear desire coming from those within the CofE holding such views to make arrangements which would allow for co-existence within the CofE, that implies that they are taking cognisance of others' beliefs. If they were intolerant to the point of bigotry then they'd not even be able to cope with that.
Unless you're working with the older definition of bigot (i.e. just meaning someone with religious zeal), in which case I'll stop worrying away at this line of reasoning.
Why stay together? Well, I'd turn that around and say why split if you can stay together? A broad (catholic ← ha ha) approach seems healthier to me since any one tradition doesn't work for everyone - or even always for an individual across time - so providing for spiritual sustenance across a range of traditions is a Good Thing™. Sharing a common life and resources and supporting each other where we can - and not getting all arsey where we disagree - helps us all.
There are also resource issues, but they're very much secondary to the relational ones of: How can we best serve God, each other and the community? Splitting seems to be a last resort and the onus is on demonstrating why it is necessary rather than on why it should be avoided.
Lesley, well done, very quietly and simply I want to encourage you to keep being as direct and straightforward about what is a matter of simple, Godly justice. Every blessing
Thank-you Freda. I like the word 'simple', you are right. Too easy to get distracted. Every Blessing to you too.
L
x
Post a Comment