With respect to Leslie Price, whose abilities as a historian of the Spiritualist movement and a psychical researcher I admire, his comments are, to say the least, inflammatory.
As a Spiritualist and a human being I’m committed to the principle of equality for all – female/male, gay/straight, black/white and so on. But my commitment to equality is not just an eccentric personal foible, it’s also a matter of UK law, which does not permit discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation or race.
Or does it? Apparently so, if you happen to be a member of the established Church of England, which is exempt from various aspects of equality legislation.
Responding to my Christmas editorial, Leslie asks if it is wise to intervene in the affairs of another religious body. I have no interest in intervention. I’m simply speaking out for the equality of all human beings, in which I believe wholeheartedly.
The much-publicised vote against allowing women to become bishops came after years of negotiations and compromise, designed to “safeguard” (I would say appease) those who found the prospect of a woman’s leadership so intolerable that they preferred to leave the C of E rather than accept it.
Leslie points out that the C of E had already accepted the principle of women bishops, and that what was rejected by the Synod was “a particular scheme” which apparently broke a promise to provide “safeguards” for those who took the traditional view that only men could be church leaders.
This view derived substantially from the Apostle Paul, who said: “The women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.”
However, he also said: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
This is one of numerous apparent contradictions in the Bible. A fairly rapid trawl-through reveals many examples, including these two quotations, taken in each case from the very same book of the Bible:
“For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.” (Jeremiah 3:12)
“Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.” (Jeremiah 17:4)
Or these words of Jesus, again from one book of the Bible, the gospel of John:
“I and my father are one.” (John 10:30)
“I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
Confused? It seems you pays your money and you takes your choice. Like you and me, Paul was simply a human being, a product of his time, thrust into the limelight, trying to make sense of a new philosophy.
And then, as Leslie says, there is the matter of ministry. “God calls a person to be a minister... No one has a ‘right’ to be a minister; it is not a matter for self-assertion.”
|
---------------------------------------- “Change is never easy, and can prove immensely unsettling for some who are wedded to the comfort of old, familiar ways.” ---------------------------------------- |
|
Concerning the “right” to ministry, this is the first point on which Leslie and I are in full agreement. However, what about the C of E women who feel a profound vocational call to ministry? Is their putting themselves forward for ministry an act of self-assertion, yet not an act of self-assertion for a man who similarly puts himself forward? On this, Leslie has lost me, for I can see no logic in his position. Presumably if anyone (whatever their gender) feels a call to ministry, whether C of E, Spiritualist or any other, he or she will approach their particular organisation and submit to the appropriate selection and training procedures. |
Let’s look at the historical context. Two thousand years ago, when Christianity was just beginning to get off the ground, women played little or no role in the wider societies of their day. Their function was to bear and raise children, and look after the home. There were no female politicians, lawyers, medics, tax collectors, carpenters and so on. In short, the traditions of the time dictated that women did not assume any role outside the home.
So what exactly were these “safeguards” to which Leslie refers? Prime among them was the right to have a male bishop for congregations that objected to a female bishop. Many outside (and inside) the C of E find it extraordinary that a minority of people who are resistant to change should call the shots so comprehensively, when it would not be possible to do so in any other walk of life.
Can we for instance ask to be tried by a judge or magistrate of a particular gender? Of course not. Can we demand to have our post delivered only by a female? No. If we need brain surgery, does it matter if it’s carried out by a man or a woman? If my brain were on the line, I would want just one thing – the best person for the job. To put it bluntly, when it comes to the delivery of an important skill or service, most of us would care nothing for which body parts the supplier happened to possess. Ability is the only thing that matters.
Sister churches of the Anglican Communion in Australia, New Zealand, Southern Africa and the United States already have women serving as bishops. By voting against women bishops, the Church of England has revealed itself as a discriminatory organisation that wishes to be above the law, in order to appease a reactionary minority of its adherents.
Change is never easy, and can prove immensely unsettling for some who are wedded to the comfort of old, familiar ways. But let’s not forget that people feared electricity when it was first used; they feared the gas-powered engine, and perhaps even the telephone. Neither should we forget that one or two pioneering women doctors had to masquerade as men in order to practise their profession. Would we be without our electricity and telephones now? Of course not. Would we sack our female doctors? The mere thought is ridiculous.
I believe that time will see the C of E’s troubles resolved, for evolution is inevitable, and those who cling to the security of the familiar will not always be in a position to dictate terms.
|