Ladies' day at the church

Just when you thought you might have to stop worrying. Just when you thought, we've got the vote, we've ostensibly got equal rights by law, we're no longer our husband's chattal, some clergy shatter the illusion. Thank goodness the Church of England officially decided to consecrate women bishops, and leave behind the antiquated idea of females as not up to snuff when preaching God's word, but the groups rallying against it give me cause to worry.

I've been meaning to join a local church, especially after my daughter asked in the car recently, "Who is God?" Yet the call for no women bishops reminded me how important it is to choose the right church. It's pretty shocking to realise that some religious leaders still think women are inferior to men. Some people are saying this is the end of the CofE, but it's the opposite: if people feel the church reflects evolved and modern moral and ethically viewpoints, it will become more relevant to their lives, not less.

I'm reminded of the hysteria when I was young about Satanic messages embedded backwards on records. At a youth group, several kids asked the minister if we should worry about absorbing "bad" messages via pop. "How many of you regularly listen to your records backwards?" he asked jokingly, before dismissing the scaremongering as a distraction from the real issues facing us - coping with parents, peer pressure, budding sexuality. He made me realise that there was a church that actually tries to help people with real problems in their real lives, that I could feel a part of. Now I feel that way about the CofE.

Ruth Gledhill blogs about the debate on her excellent Articles of Faith blog - check it out if you want to read more about the full motion.

(Thanks, KM, for bringing up the bishops issue in the comments of Caitlin's post.)

Comments

[KM]

I really want to read that new book about Mother Theresa, you know the one where it transpires she actually found prayer really really hard and often struggled and felt she had no faith...

heard even. I think I should go to bed.

[Gipsy]

Oh goodness! I was reading that as Mister Theresa. Of course I've head of Mother Theresa. Feeling rather silly that I didn't work that out for myself. I even thought it rather odd that a man had the name Theresa.

[delilah]

Gipsy it's Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Google "mother theresa prayers".

[j]

Just a quick word in support of Kim- I dont see why you cant comment as an atheist, I'm an atheist and nobody tells me to go away- at least not for that reason.

Been away busy so have missed some v interesting things- thanks to Delilah and Helo, I can especially sympathise with Delilah's POV. Also HELO is right, atheists too would say it is good not to tempt people just because there is no absolute rule stopping you, I wouldnt drink in front of a recovering alcoholic or young person either.

Though I cant resist joining Caitlin's virtual adultery over on Channel 5....

I think it is a vital question, how much do we destroy the dreams and vocations of women through refusing them their life of service.

[Gipsy]

>>Prayer distances the noise of the world

that sounds really lovely. Who is Mr Teresa?

KM - I'm afraid I wasn't able to read Helo's post. I only get a few minutes scattered throughout the day to spend in here, so if I can't digest something on the first reading I don't. I know I should try better!

Is contemplative the kind of prayer Delilah was describing?

[delilah]

Prayer is a two-way process. Prayer distances the noise of the world and the self and enlarges the heart so that it can receive the holy spirit. Like yoga, regular practice is better than stress-related binges. Mr Teresa has written some very inspiring guides to prayer.

The gospel of john contains detailed descriptions of the workings of the holy spirit; notably that it gives very ordinary people the ability to achieve quite extraordinary things. It doesn't seem to care very much for reason, or scripture, or tradition.

[KM]

I guess it depends on what kind of prayer you're talking about. Contemplative or vocal.

Or some would argue you can listen to the Holy Spirit through the Bible, as Helo suggests.

[Gipsy]

Prayer is a good way of 'talking' to the holy spirit perhaps, but what about 'listening'? Or am I missing the point (it has been quite a few years since I went anywhere near anything theological).

[delilah]

Well, km, I would have thought prayer would be a start.

"The fruit of silence is prayer...the fruit of prayer is faith...the fruit of faith is service...the fruit of service is peace." Mr Teresa

[KM]

Helo, I've now read your long and thoughtful post properly.

I think the best way I can respond is that I think you've expressed the evangelical Bible-based viewpoint much better than I ever could.

For me I follow the Anglican tradition of faith being composed of the three-fold cord, Tradition, Reason and Scripture, although I'm rather prone to agree with John Wesley who as you doubtless know added in Experience.

Which Delilah's post raises, interestingly, what does it mean to listen to the Holy Spirit?

[delilah]

That were me anonymous earlier - posting from a boat with dodgy internet.

HELO, I've tried very hard with scriptural literalism but I can't, in all concience, pick n mix those bits that I want to follow. I am equally shocked at the prospect of offering my preteen daughter for gang rape as by allowing the gang rape (by sodomy- almost a minor detail) of guests in my house - do I just pick out the minor reference to sodomy or do I take on board the whole story, which seems more about hospitality than homophobia? And saint Paul is extremely clear about the barefoot n pregnant role of women in the church he was trying to build - you can't pick n mix the acceptable bits if you choose bible literalism. And what about all those other writings of quite plausible provenance, such as the gnostic gospels, which contradict a lot of St Paul? Why do we need saint Paul to tell us what the gospels mean anyway?

No, the reason for the vigour of the evangelical churches is not their bible base, but their openness to the holy spirit and willingness to take the instruction to love god and your neighbour literally. Jesus did not provide clear instructions beyond this, only his example, his parables and the holy spirit. The rest is made by mere mortals.

The synod argues that they are driven by the holy spirit, but you also have to look for the fruits of that spirit: in particular the sacrifice of one's own desires to follow the dictates of the holy spirit: and I just don't see that happening much in anglicanism. I also subscribe to the gnostic idea (see Renee girard) that Satan works through mobs and large gatherings by generating accusers and scapegoats - one reason why Jesus loved peacemakers and another reason why I distrust st paul (vision of light - lucifer - and boy did the man churn out accusations and scapegoats). Large church organisations are particularly vulnerable, whether Anglican, catholic, or evangelical.

Love god, love your neighbour, and listen to the holy spirit is a better guide than the dictates of potentates or princes, even of the church.

[Kim]

No doubt it's pointless my wading in, as an atheist, but the debate seems mad to me. There's nowhere in the Gospels that says Jesus had any thoughts on the sex of bishops, or priests, because he didn't have any. From my long-ago reading of the New Testament, I had the impression that Jesus would probably have thought the whole idea of a hierarchy of bishops and priests was a bad one in the first place.

The main thing you glean about Jesus from the gospels, amongst all the contradictions and stuff that is clearly mythical, is that he thought people ought to be kind to one another, tolerant of other people's differences, and non-judgemental about other people's behaviour. How this translates 2000 years later into bitter arguments about whether women can become bishops just illustrates the fact that that simple message became perverted very quickly.

[Sue]

Shame the Sudanese Anglicans aren't at the Synod....shaming every one else there.

Wasn't it the Byzantines that used to have riots over icons and the nature of the Trinity and so on, while Islam was bashing down their gates?! (Not to mention the dear old Venetians sacking their co-religionist 'ally', and hence bringing in the era of the Ottoman Empire casting its dire pall over the Balkans still.)

[Sue]

Shame the Sudanese Anglicans aren't at the Synod....shaming every one else there.

Wasn't it the Byzantines that used to have riots over icons and the nature of the Trinity and so on, while Islam was bashing down their gates?! (Not to mention the dear old Venetians sacking their co-religionist 'ally', and hence bringing in the era of the Ottoman Empire casting its dire pall over the Balkans still.)

[Gipsy]

Oh boy KM, that does put it into perspective doesn't it?

[KM]

Helo, I haven't got time to give your post the attention it deserves, but I will do, and then post with any questions/clarifications. Good to hear from an evangelical - it is often only the Catholics who get reported on this one, for some reason.

[KM]

Sorry to hear about lifethreatening stuff in your family, Sue. And yes you're right it does make everything else look a bit silly. It reminds me of the Sudanese Anglican church's response, when they were recently asked to prepare a document on their attitude to homosexuality amongst clergy - they replied something like they hadn't had time, what with having to deal with the mass genocide of their members, and would the rest of the meeting please be patient.

[Sue]

KM - yes, on suffering - that's the ultimate toughie. I feel, de profundis, that it's the main reason I believe in God -because a universe in which suffering occurs meaninglessly is even worse than a universe in which it's all part of God's plan for us! I just have to hope - have faith - that it is there for a good reason, even if it's one I find very, very hard, if not impossible, to accept or understand. It definitely, for me, goes into my 'faith bucket'!

Right now I wish desperately that the bitter cup my family are drinking in terms of life threatening illness were NOT coming our way. But it is, and that's that. At the very least I have to believe it's 'character forming'. Will 'good' come out of it? Well, I guess we'll be better, kinder, wiser people, able to appreciate the life we have left to us, and put the 'trivia' like money etc into proper perspective. All those good old 'eternal verities' really come to the surface when the chips go down!

And I also have to say that one of the 'trivia' that seems to be increasingly trivial is people fussing about whether someone with a double x chromosome can or can't be a bishop! Oh come on, guys, let's have a reality check here, shall we? Haven't Christians got more important things to do?!

[HELO]

I'm probably going to get shot down for this so will only post the once (unless there's a glaring clarification I need to make) but just wanted to offer an insight into the intellectual thought that evangelicals are putting into these issues.

Issues re both women in authority positions and homosexual activity are occurring together because they are both based on how we view the authority of the Bible. Those who view it as the word of God also therefore believe it should be authoritative in all matters of faith and action. Obviously that begs some questions regarding its reliability and interpretation. Masses of literature on reliability, more lucid than I will be so would recommend 'Are the NT documents reliable?' by FF Bruce with references to others. Suffice to say it isn't an issue ducked by those basing their lives on the Bible. Re interpretation, there is obviously a need for humility, but the scholarly principles are that if God wrote it, it is self consistent so should seek to understand each bit in light of other bits, that the teaching needs to be understood as intended (eg is it poetry, history, instruction etc) and in the context written to illuminate the principle or meaning and then figure out how that would apply today. So for a less contentious example, Paul discusses food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8 and how the believer should deal with it. The main point he makes is that although he is clear the idols do not exist in reality and therefore the sacrifice is meaningless, if other believers would be compromised or confused by me eating it, I should not do so for their benefit, out of love. The issue would translate directly for many believers in Japan and elsewhere where such sacrifices do occur but in the UK they probably don't so much, however the principle once understood can be applied - even if I know that I am free under God to do something (eg drink alcohol, go to a club etc) if another believer would be compromised by my doing so (eg a recovered alcoholic or just a youngster who sees it as licence to break the law and get smashed) then I should curtail my own freedom for their benefit.

BTW, crucially, the OT is not to be ditched (Matthew 5:17-20) but it is to be understood through Jesus (Mark 2:18-22) so for example we no longer sacrifice animals for cleansing from sin according to the OT instructions because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice once for all to which they were all pointing, who is able to take all the sentence on our behalf and remove the need for further sacrifice (Hebrews 9:11-28).

OK, finally returning to the 2 issues at stake here, there is a challenge in the issue of women in authority where people with a high view of the Bible's authority do disagree over exactly how the principles apply today - partly as previously said here because church governance was different in NT times so a lot of patience and humility needed. A couple of my own thoughts - just because an argument is old (men and women are different but still equal) does not make it invalid, and incidentally I wonder how the principle of 1 Cor 8 above is being lived out by those whose consciences about women bishops are being ridden all over.

Re homosexuality, it's more unpopular in the secular press because of our social circumstances, but the Biblical texts are much less disputed in meaning. Undermining of their application tends to come either as an attack on Paul's authority to write Scripture (but note 2 Peter 3:15-16, - no one said he was easy ;-)but Peter thinks Paul was writing Scripture and 1 Cor 15:3-8 Paul clarifies his apostolic status because of Jesus' meeting with him on the road to Damascus) or as a suggestion that it is only Jesus' own words we should pay attention to, not the whole of the Bible - but Jesus himself prepared the disciples to be his teachers to the world (John 14-16, esp eg 15:20) and quoted OT as God's word even when it was in the narrative (eg Matt 19:4-5 cf Gen 2:24).

The image of the church as obsessed with people's sex lives is deeply sad but the reason it persists is because the issue that matters is whether we believe the Bible and are prepared to obey it even when it costs us.

For what it's worth, we have been part of a number of different churches as we've moved around who seek to teach, understand and obey the Bible daily and couples living together before marriage are challenged (and in some cases refused permission to marry in the particular church), as are married couples to be treating sex as God instructs including teaching on internet porn & relationships etc. so the teaching that God's intention for sex is between one man and one woman, within marriage, for life is not fairly described as homophobic.

But other posters here are aslo right, the balance of teaching on generosity with money and time, patience with one another, care and concern for those in need, justice for the oppressed etc is larger as it should be because we are seeking to learn all that the Bible teaches. Most fundamentally, we are constantly reminded that God's main purpose is to have all things under Jesus' authority, starting with each of us - Ephesians 1:10 - and that surrendering our lives to his authority has enormous implications for all areas of our life. Jesus had much to say to the Pharisees about hypocrisy and man-pleasing and they were the religious leaders of the day so we are always wise to heed his warnings to them for ourselves. Christians are just sinners who are forgiven though, not people suddenly no longer sinners.

Quite enough from me, and apologies in advance for anything I've phrased badly or explained poorly. Re the issues themselves, will sit back to face the barrage but hope that it's been a little bit helpful to anyone genuinely wanting to understand current debates within the church of england.

[Lucy]

Eluned, you expressed your views very simply and, I'm sure, as tactfully as you could - so, I'm grateful for that. But I have to struggle with this phrase:'I am quite sure that is the dictionary definition and that most people are in agreement about that.'

Now, one might believe that the Bible is the Word of God. But the dictionary clearly is not. It is simply a book of reference compiled by various people, who may or may not be swayed by an agenda similar to yours. You cannot cite the dictionary as a defense for your views and expect to be taken seriously.

The bishops issue is less about theology than pay, promotion power and pensions.

A post-reformation church will always have dubious claims to transubstantiaton or apostolic succession so anyone whose first concerns are those must have been making his/her career there for other, more wordly reasons. Parishioners are free to move anytime, and if they fail to find the holy spirit at work in the congregation, they must.

There is nothing in either book of the bible (other than the ravings of St Paul) to exclude women or gays from positions of responsibility in the church. However, there is quite a lot in both books to indicate that worship of worldly things, including sex and power (which is really what this vote was about, as km confirmed) ARE incompatible with worship of god. Both sides of the women bishop debate seem to have forgetten that Jesus main instructions to his apostles were to spread the Good News and to "feed my sheep". Too many Anglican pastors seem too busy feeding their families, bishops, personal social justice campaigns, or current sexual relationships to pay much attention to their flocks, other than to moan about how ungrateful they be and the state of the church roof.

Does everything have a reason? I saw a footnote in a Hebrew prayerbook which contrasted a Jewish woman of faith waiting for news of her son in a casualty department with one without faith. The one without faith had only questions without answers; the other had answers without questions. Faith is not reasonable; and it gives us the strength we need to find God's (often unreasonable) work in an unreasonable world.

[KM]

Yes, I know where you are coming from, Sue. I suppose what I think, and to be honest I grope a bit here because dogmatics and doctrine isn't my speciality either, is that there is a difference between God using evil/suffering for good, and God wanting that evil/suffering to be there.
For example, we all know people who have had disabled children/terrible illnesses/major life-threatening incidents and regard them as having been in some sense a blessing because they brought them to greater self-recognition, love of others etc etc. That kind of thinking is quite common and it is tempting to seize on it to say it is all part of God's plan.
Which I guess at some level it may be, but in my view only in the sense that God can change anything for the better and bring good out of anything - that doesn't mean the bad is good, just that there can be compensations and stuff that comes out of it that is positive. An extreme example of the "there is a reason for everything" way of thinking would be to say that the Holocaust was part of God's plan, and we can see that because it taught us Europeans not to be so jolly anti-Semitic and gave some non-Jews the opportunity to be heroic.
Now I'm happy to say that good came out of the Holocaust, but I don't think the suffering was actually 'planned' by God. That to me, makes him as much of a sadist as the Nazis.

But like I say this is only my view.

[Sue]

KM - Ah, OK, thank you! I would probably go along with your first point, in that (if I'm understanding you), relying on some sort of 'hidden reason' which you just have to 'have faith' is there, even though you can't see it or know it, for something such as whether women priests are kosher or not. Although I'd also say that 'having blind faith' so to speak is probably an essential part of religion, if for none other than the very good reason we can have no 'proof' of the existence of God.

On you second point I'm not sure I agree completely. Yes, I think God is appalled by evil and suffering, but I don't think it's not part of his 'grand plan' because I like to think tht everything is part of the bigger picture (painted by God). I think that the alternative is to grant 'independent existence and power' to 'the devil' (for want of a better term), and I wouldn't like to grant the devil that kind of power!

And I suppose I do like to think that a sparrow doesn't fall from a tree, etc, - ie, that stuff doesn't just 'happen'.

On the whole, though, I tend not to wander into this particular maze, as I feel it can be partly depressing, partly distrcting, and for me probably fairly unproductive and complicating? That's why I have my 'faith' bucket (ie, 'God is working it out so just keep hanging on in there, OK?'!) and then just hopefully get on with things the best I can, passing this way but once, etc.

May be a bit defeatist, but it's simpler (and easier). But then, on balance, I'm probably more of a 'works not faith' sort of person.

(Speaking of which I found a great bit in the Epistle of James only the other night, which chuffed me lots as Protestants tend to be keener on faith than works, aren't they? "I will show you my faith by what I do....faith without deeds is dead.")

ie, yes, I think we need faith, but since it's all pretty 'divinely mysterious' I think it's best just to "trust in the Lord" and get on with making the world a better place, and our lives better lives.

(Which probably means that when I get through the pearly gates I'm going to be lugged off to a Remedial Theology Class so I can catch up with the likes of you!)

[KM]

I think I probably explained myself badly, Sue. I have no problem with the idea of their being reasons beyond our capacity to understand, and in a sense I think of that as applying to everything in nature, both big and small. What I don't myself believe in is

1) a doctrine of faith being "there for a reason," e.g. no women priests, when there seems no justification except that it was in the Bible or it's always been the thing to do

2) Everything in creation giving pleasure to God, and being part of the great plan in that sense. I think God is as outraged by suffering and evil as we are at times, and don't think that everything bad or sad that happens is there for a reason. Sometimes life just is.
I don't myself really like the idea of life being a big jigsaw puzzle of meaning we have to put together so it all 'fits' - very flat and reductive to me....but then, I was never very fond of jigsaws!