Breaking the stained-glass ceiling

With talk of a split in the Anglican Church after US Episcopalians elected their first female bishop last week, it's no surprise to learn which side of the debate Bermuda's Anglican Bishop is on.

On Friday, Bishop Ewen Ratteray reaffirmed his opposition to the ordination of women, referring to a paper he wrote in March 2002. In it, he summarised his opposition as follows:

1. Our Lord Jesus was quite radical in many ways, yet he appointed twelve men as his Apostles Though he often flew in the face of religious and societal norms of his day, yet he did not when it came to his choice of Apostles. It is a presumption on our part to assume that Jesus would embrace societal norms of the 20th and 21st centuries.

2. Mary Magdalene was the first witness of the Resurrection, yet she was not accorded apostolic status.

Is the absence of female apostles a fundamental part of Christianity, or simply circumstantial? As I understand it, the New Testament was created by selecting and editing certain writings from a larger body of Christian literature. Can we be sure that the omitted texts did not paint a different picture of women?

That aside, it seems equally presumptuous to assume that Jesus would not embrace today’s societal norms.

3. It has been the unfailing practice of the Church to ordain men as Deacons, Priests and Bishops for most of her 2000 years of existence.

How long a practice has continued has no bearing on its morality. The African slave trade went on for several hundred years.

4. Such a fundamental change requires the consent and agreement of the whole church, and not just individual national churches.

This is simply a bureaucratic obstacle, not an ideological reason to oppose change.

5. From Scripture we know that men and women have been created equal and in the image of God, yet they are not the same. They have been endowed with different gifts, abilities and natures, which are complementary the one to the other. While women as well as men may have ministries within the Church, I believe that ordained ministry should be reserved for men. I acknowledge with much gratitude the valuable ministry of many women and young ladies in a host of areas in the Church. They serve faithfully and well, as Lay Readers, Servers, Eucharistic Ministers, Intercessors and Sick Visitors to name but a few faithful ministries.

6. Just as Jesus is the Head of the Body of Christ, the Church, so is the man the head of the human family. This is God’s way of ordering nature and we cannot change what God has ordained.

Patronising, sexist pap, that simply restates the Bishop’s opinion instead of explaining the reasoning behind it.

7. No one has the ‘right’ to ordination. All vocation has its origin in the call of God to an individual.

And what if a woman feels the call of God? Who are you to dismiss it?

The Bishop concludes:

As the chief shepherd of the flock in this Diocese it is my duty to guard the faith ‘once delivered to the saints.’ It is also my duty to drive away all dangerous and erroneous doctrines and practices; the innovation of the ordination of women is one such in my view.

In today’s world, the Church cannot hide its discriminatory instincts beneath a cloak of piety. The ordination of women is indeed a dangerous issue for the Church, but it's one that cannot be driven away or ignored. Whether it eventually chooses to accept modern ideas of sexual equality or it does not, there will be outrage. Perhaps a split would be best for all concerned.

Comments

[Stephen on 26.06.06 at 05:44]

I think a split is inevitable. As a Bermudian who lives and works in the UK and is very much involved in the Church of England's life here, I'd like to affirm that women priests here are an essential part of the life of most churches.
But this is a fundemental difference of opinion in the worldwide Anglican church (which often also relates to wider questions of gender and sexuality e.g. ordaining gay men and women to be priests and bishops).
I'm lucky enough to worship in a large church which is served by a team of priests who are male and female, straight and gay. They all hold different excellent qualities as ministers of the gospel - and we value and love them for those qualities, not for preconceptions about roles and stereotypes.
The American Anglicans have done a brave thing and I commend them for making a good choice and not being swayed by religious conservatives, or, in the case of some bishops and archbishops (and I don't include Bishop Ratteray in this) religious bullies.

[Martin on 26.06.06 at 09:34]

Sorry - but I cannot get serious about this.

The Church (in the broadest sense) continues to be chauvinistic in the way it operates. Any other group which refused to provide equality of opportunity to women would have been challenged in the courts by now.

It is arrogant in the extreme to continue to exclude women from positions in the church other than at the lower end of the structure, e.g. nuns etc.

[Stephen on 26.06.06 at 10:48]

By the way, Limey, there is a detail that needs to be corrected. Your top of the posting mentions the Americans electing their first female bishop. What you actually mean is their first female ARCHbishop (although the Americans use the title "Presiding Bishop" instead of archbishop).

Female bishops have been around for some time now in several Anglican churches across the globe including the USA, Canada and New Zealand. In the Church of England we are pushing for this to happen too but the conservatives continue to put a spanner in the works every time church legislation is ready to be passed by the General Synod (the church's national governing body).

Martin is right when he says this is archaic and arrogant. In countries with far more comprehensive human rights legislation than Bermuda, all faith groups (not just Christians) have sought exemption from legislation on equality issues. Sadly they are usually given that exemption. Is that true under Bermuda's laws too? Could a woman take the Anglican Church of Bermuda to court to contest the denial of her rght to apply to be a priest?

[Onion on 26.06.06 at 10:52]

The Bishop is expanding upon his interpretation of the Bible. You cannot import secular ideals onto spritual ones. The very idea that Jesus would embrace today's societal norms likens Jesus to just some political activist as opposed to being the divine Son of God.

I am not totally against the idea of female priests. But I disagree with the logic used above to reach a conclusion on the subject. Onee must know that the Bible was not meant to be politically correct. It was not meant to please all people. It does offend many. But Truth is absolute. Opinion is relative.

The US Epicopalians are the same people that ordained an openly gay priest. You cannot do this anymore than you can ordain an adulterer or fornicator. The Bible says it is wrong and that's it.

Now, you could write a new bible and call it someting else and add your own 2 cents to it and then live by that. But you cannot tinker with the Word of God in the Bible that exists today to suit "societal norms".

[Trebliso on 26.06.06 at 11:04]

Onion - the bible is a basis of faith and not a doctrine for a particular lifestyle. The same folks who damn those who would ordain a gay man would decry carbon dating as the work of Beelzebub.

As far as my thinking goes on the Bible I think the lessons of Paul's epistles to the Corinthians gives us the greatest understanding of how we as Christians should live our lives and live our lives through Christ, not just cherrypicking inherently contradictory segments that bolster certain prejudices we carry. But, as I said, that's just my own take.

[J Galt on 26.06.06 at 11:07]

Jesus Limey, your not even religous, so why do you care if they allow women to be priests or not. If a women has a problem with that then why can't she choose to attend another church which allows them to be priests, or start their own.

You are just as bad as them because you want to force your views on them.

Let people vote with their dollars for christ sake Man!!!! Don't like the doctrine of the church don't attend.

Discrimination isn't evil. Evil would be for you to try and force your views on them.

[Onion on 26.06.06 at 11:16]

Trebliso, the Bible is a basis of faith and a doctrine of lifestyle. The two go hand in hand. If your faith says one thing but your lifestyle shows something else then your faith isn't really sincere.

Forget about what "folk" say about ordaining gay priests or carbon dating. Let's talk about what the Bible says.

[sandgrownan on 26.06.06 at 11:17]

Galt..true to a point, however it's the hypocrisy that stinks. The church's influence is the reason i can't buy a bottel of wine on a Sunday to have with my evening meal - they force their standards of morality on me.

[Trebliso on 26.06.06 at 11:30]

Onion - a lovely idea that just falls down on interpretation and subjectivity. The Bible is unworkable as a Bill of Rights (sit down, Galt!) unless you live life frozen in amber from 2000 years ago.

I'm not going to rehash the oft quoted and nonsensical emails used to bait literalists legitmizing stoning my sister for menstruating etc but I look at the fundamnetal differences between the apostles reporting of our Lord on the Cross to see how much of the Bible is open to interpretation.

[Fifi on 26.06.06 at 11:39]

Who cares? With some of the shananigans going on in some of the churches, it might be a good idea to put women at the head of all of 'em. At least it might cut down on the choir boys being messed with!!!

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 12:59]

Never did understand how women let men get away with this kind of stuff in the first place. The bible is open to interpretation. Times change and so should the interpretations. Bring on the women!

[Raptor on 26.06.06 at 13:01]

Pathetic. It's quite well understood now that great distortions were imposed on the image of Mary Magdalene--turning her into a prostitute, for instance, and also that she and other women (Lydia) were very close to Jesus and extremely important in the early church. They were further written out of the Bible when certain books were selected over others--by men.

Limey's concern is about women more than religion, and rightly so. Women's rights have most often been slim to non-existent.

The Bible needs to be read with care. It is an inspired history.

[Raptor on 26.06.06 at 13:11]

Recommended:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060213fa_fact2

[Phil on 26.06.06 at 13:11]

Onion,

Let's talk about what the Bible says.

Alright then. Both Deuteronomy 22:22 and Leviticus 20:10 state that if a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both should be put to death.

I assume that you do not advocate this. So how then can you justify using other passages in the Bible to exclude women or homosexuals from the priesthood?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 26.06.06 at 13:12]

"But you cannot tinker with the Word of God in the Bible that exists today to suit "societal norms"."

See, this one cracked me up. As we all know, the Bible has been tinkered with since it was written, continuously.
To think it hasn't is rather silly.

[letsallbepagans on 26.06.06 at 13:50]

The books of the bible were selected from a vast collection of texts...most deemed heresy and tossed. Just read up on Irenaeus' Adversus Haerses or the Nag Hammadi Library. I think the ones selected served the churches agenda (control of every variety political and financial). The gospels of Thomas and the recently discovered and painstakenly restored gospel of Judas are worth researching as well. As much as I would like everyone to see these things as I do - Galt is right. I will have to vote with my dollars and not support the church with my dollars or my attendence.

[ace on 26.06.06 at 14:53]

The bible is the word of man.

[Onion on 26.06.06 at 15:07]

Limey,

In the Old Testament Israel was under the Law of Moses. This law laid down by God included a strict set of punishments for each infraction, including adultery, homosexuality, etc. Also a strict Mosaic dietary code was etsablished, forbiding Jews to eat pork, shell fish etc etc. To be a part of God's people under the Law of Moses, you just had to be born and then circumcised (if a male) on the eighth day after birth. Then, there would be time to learn about what God expected of you in the Law of Moses. These instructions were for Israel only, not for all peoples.

Under the New Covenant, brought about by Christ's shed blood on the cross, we come by faith in Jesus' sacrifice, looking to Him to forgive us of our sins as we believe in Him, repent of our sins and are baptized in His name. We must make a conscience section to obey Him as He has directed. No matter what nation we are from, He will accept us if we respond by obedient faith. Hebrews chapter 8, Gal. 3:26-29, Acts 2:36-42.

Many moral matters, such as murder, homosexuality and many others, continue to be sinful, no matter what covenant we live under and this is referred to in the New Testament.

Now the Bible does NOT say thou must persecute homosexuals, or thou must hate them. But it is clear in stating that the act is a sin.

[selkieman on 26.06.06 at 15:22]

At which point in the New Testament do we hear Jesus say that homosexuality is sinful ? Or even mention it at all ?

Or are you confusing him with his first great idolator - Paul ?

Forget the Text, Onion, get with the Logos....

[Shipwrecked on 26.06.06 at 15:46]

Onion,

Okay, so which laws should Israelis follow now? Should they still kill adulters or does the new testament override the old for them too? What part of the bible lists the parts of the new testament that override the old or at least which parts of the old we can ignore? How about slaves- can we have them or do I have to move to Israel? What about the 10 commandments- that's old testament and I'm not an Israeli so do I follow them?

[Teacher on 26.06.06 at 16:07]

You can think what you like, that is the beauty of individual freedom. We can debate the rights and wrongs of the Bible. Very few people will change their stand point though. One thing that we can all agree on though, one thing that is certain – Death!!

When the last breath of air leaves your body and you slip into unconsciousness and die you will be able to see if your personal opinions were correct. Your money, nice house and education won’t change a thing. For some they will be vindicated, for others it will turn out to be a monumental regret.

I guess then we will see who had the monopoly on Truth. Until that time we will try and argue points of view, but in the end the Truth will be known.

Some will say rubbish, when you’re dead your dead. An interesting idea, I don’t have the faith for that one.

[sandgrownan on 26.06.06 at 16:35]

Nah Teacher, two things are certain Death and a nurse.

Get real, we're simply a carbon based lifeform (to quote the late great Douglas Adams) that has evolved into something reasonably intelligent that can't quite get it's head around that there may be no purpose.

In the meantime, where's that nurse....

[Zoom on 26.06.06 at 16:38]

It seems to me that Bishop Rat's position is in clear violation of the Human Rights Act. Is this not discrimination based on gender?

[Bill Cook on 26.06.06 at 17:02]

Wonder how the Rat would get around the fact that Jesus was an expatriot ?

[ace on 26.06.06 at 17:26]

"It seems to me that Bishop Rat's position is in clear violation of the Human Rights Act. Is this not discrimination based on gender?"

It sure is.

[Trebliso on 26.06.06 at 17:36]

Were there any Japanese Apostles? Or any disabled ones? Does that mean my marriage was undertaken by someone who had 2 strikes against their ordination?

Quick - get me an Aramaic speaking prelate of vague Middle Eastern descent...

[Smooks on 26.06.06 at 17:53]

All the posters here seem to have the ultimate answers to everything. I would say a little self reflection is due. Opinions are like moth balls, they help to keep away the moths but the smell is irritating. Instead of putting one self on a pedistal all the time and telling everyone else whats right or wrong or how tings should done, step back, reflect.

Never happen.Greed as some say will kill the cat.

The cats dead.

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 18:03]

Smooks - welcome to the club....

[Teacher on 26.06.06 at 20:04]

I am still refelecting Smooks - waiting for new revelation

[Teacher on 26.06.06 at 20:09]

Thanks Sandgrownan

"to quote the late great Douglas Adams"

Thanks for quoting a dead person - As the Great Kenny Rogers says, 'you've got to know when to quit and when to gamble'. I fear douglas Adams took one gamble too far with that one.

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 20:29]

The trouble with reflection is that it often ends up with seven years of bad luck.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 26.06.06 at 20:32]

"All the posters here seem to have the ultimate answers to everything. I would say a little self reflection is due. Opinions are like moth balls, they help to keep away the moths but the smell is irritating. Instead of putting one self on a pedistal all the time and telling everyone else whats right or wrong or how tings should done, step back, reflect.

Never happen.Greed as some say will kill the cat.

The cats dead."

I'm not sure what you're saying here, Smooks.

What do we do after this time of reflection?
Shall we continue to keep our mouth shut, as you seem to be advising?

What's wrong with expressing our opinion? Will it be more valid after self-reflection? Isn't that want blogs like this are for? Isn't your advice to self-reflect just your opinion? Don't YOU have all the answers and that answer is the course of self reflection you advise?
What makes your post anything but what you decry in it?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 26.06.06 at 20:33]

And what's with the bit about greed? I really don't get the train of thought that got us to that mixed metaphor? Who are these some that say "Greed will kill the cat"? I thought it was curiosity that will kill the cat.

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 20:45]

Methinks he was "reflecting" in a fine glass of Mateus..... and some gredy cat got more than his fair share. ;-)

[Bill Cook on 26.06.06 at 20:46]

Maybe one has to be a Pussy to understand that one ?

[YankeeKayaker on 27.06.06 at 00:33]

<>

This is a valid point. I'm not Anglican, as far as I'm concerned they have the right to run their church however they see fit. The bottom line remains; if you don't like the way a church is run or what a curch teaches, you are free to leave! There are plenty of religions out there, and it's quite fashionable these days to just start your own. If one doesn't agree with what a church teaches, I suppose you are free to not agree. But you have NO business telling them they have to change their beliefs to suit "you."

[Martin on 27.06.06 at 07:30]

Quick - get me an Aramaic speaking prelate of vague Middle Eastern descent...

Is that East as in St Georges...or further east than that?

[Raptor on 27.06.06 at 09:19]

The Bible is not perfect; it needs to be handled with care:

In discussing David Brion Davis' new book on slavery, "Inhuman Bondage," at the Times/online, Howard Temperley writes, "

“Quite simply, slavery was wicked. The problem, it might be argued, is rather how supposedly Christian societies had put up with it for as long as they did. Yet the fact remains that, up to 1770, not only had it been all but universally accepted, but the Bible had been one of its principal mainstays.”

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25340-2236229,00.html

("David Brion Davis, probably best known for his Pulitzer Prizewinning book, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture (1966), is neither a quantifier nor a neo-abolitionist but an intellectual historian. However, as Sterling Professor of American History at Yale University, and Director of the Gilder-Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery there, he has long been regarded as the dean of slavery studies in the United States").

[SmokingGun on 27.06.06 at 10:27]

YankeeKayaker - although there may well be dozens of other religions out there it's not something one treats like a used car lot. People born into and raised with a certain religion are often going to question that religion to some degree along the line. The fact is that as each Archbishop passes on he will have also questioned and made subtle adjustments along the journey. It's not to say that a religious belief has to change over-night but it would be foolish for a church not to address issues of more modern times. It's the sole reason why there are so many "new" religions out there in the first place.

[Wickering Banker :-) ---: on 28.06.06 at 22:02]

The church, in it's continually immature fashion, continues to tell us that the Bible is God's word.

It is, in fact, at best, man's interpretation of God's word.

Eff'm all!!!

[ace on 09.07.06 at 10:45]

LONDON (AFP) - The Church of England has come out in favour of consecrating women bishops, saying it was "theologically justified."

The synod of clergy and laity meeting in York, northern England, Saturday backed the majority opinion of the church's bishops by 288 votes to 119, giving the green light to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to form a commission from Monday to consider the question.

The issue, along with that of gay clergy, could prove divisive for the worldwide Anglican communion of 77 million believers, whose traditionalists are unhappy with the idea of women priests, let alone bishops.

Experts say that the first bishop to emerge from the ranks of the church's 2,000 female clergy could be consecrated around 2012, 28 years after female priests were authorised.

In a speech before the vote, the Church of England's second ranking cleric, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, paid tribute to "Anglican women who have ... kept the faith and remained loyal to the Church of England."

But Sentamu, the Church of England's first black archbishop, warned that "It would become more difficult for Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox to regard a church with women bishops as part of the universal Catholic Church."

Currently 14 out of the 38 Anglican churches in the world have approved the idea of women bishops. Last month US Episcopalians became the first to choose a female leader, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, after already causing controversy by consecrating an openly gay bishop in 2003.

[SmokingGun on 09.07.06 at 11:26]

Amen