ViaMedia

Category: Sexism

  • Love, Sex, Hypocrisy & Power

    by Jayne Ozanne, Editor of Via Media News and Director of the Ozanne Foundation

    Jayne Ozanne new

    Abridged version of speech to William Temple Association, Bournemouth given on February 3rd 2020 and reported in The Guardian

    Most of you, I’m sure, will be more than aware of the events of the last few weeks when we have had pronouncements by men (and, of course, a few women) in power in the Church of England regarding the place of sex in a loving relationship for those with seemingly little or no power in the Church.  The House of Bishops’ rather ironically named “Pastoral Statement” coldly set out the supposedly immutable fact that “sexual relationships outside of marriage fall short of God’s purposes for human beings”, just don’t tell the Holy Spirit, Mary and of course, Joseph.  (Brackets, the Holy Spirit did tell Joseph, but that’s another story).  And so, in one spectacular move we managed virtually overnight to upset millions whose lives do not conform to the way that those in religious power in our Church believe that they should.

    Similarly, we have had a week where two seemingly all-powerful men – Prince Andrew and Harvey Weinstein – have been publicly questioned about what their victims claim were abusive sexual relationships, based on fear and power. Both of course, like Jack Profumo in his famous speech in the House of Commons, deny all such charges.  To which, I can’t help reminding myself of the infamous words of Mandy Rice Davies when informed in court about the denial of Lord Astor to her claims of an affair: “Well he would, wouldn’t he!”.

    Love, sex and power.

    You see, abuse is rife in our Church – and what makes me so angry is that it is so often perpetrated by the very people who pronounce from their pulpits the very same words stated in the House of Bishops’ “pastoral statement” – that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman.

    This, for me, goes to the heart of the issue.  The deep levels of hypocrisy that exist amongst certain church leaders – and I for one want to say, enough!

    I believe it’s time to end this hypocritical charade.  It’s time for some honesty and some plain straight speaking.  Quite frankly, it’s time now for some remorse and where necessary, apologies with real commitments to change.

    I am surely not alone in being angered at hearing people pronounce cold, legalistic statements regarding our sex lives rather than our love lives.  Do you know that the Bishops’ Pastoral Statement did not mention “love” once, save in mentioning the forthcoming Living in Love and Faith report? Such statements come without an ounce of pastoral sensitivity or understanding of the hurt that they cause millions – who understand far better than we, the Church, it seems, that it’s not who you love but how you love that matters.

    What’s more, I’m angered by the duplicity and hypocrisy of certain men – and yes, they normally are men – who talk about the sanctity of marriage, while they themselves live such very different lives.  Those who hide behind a smiling public face, but whose personal lives tell quite a different story.

    We saw it with Peter Ball.  However, as I’ve already touched on, it’s not just retired bishops who are guilty here.  It is people serving in our churches now.

    Confession time.

    Many years ago, quite separately to the rape incident I talked about earlier, I naively found myself in a married conservative evangelical’s bedroom whilst away on Church business.  I had foolishly accepted his invitation to continue our discussion from earlier that evening in his room over a drink.  I wasn’t at all prepared for his advances (as he now knows, given I’ve since come out!).  It ended with me having to push him off me as he lay on top of me tickling me, despite my protests.  I was sickened and ashamed.  I still am.  He has never apologised, but he does keep pronouncing about sex being only between a man and a woman in marriage.

    I’m not sure which is worse – the abuse I suffered that night or the hypocrisy of hearing him constantly pronounce his views on this subject, knowing what I do.

    This type of hypocrisy surely must end.

    There are so many of us who know full well that we have leaders who preach one thing and practice something completely different.  Especially when it comes to sex. We have leaders who are married and have affairs.  We have leaders who make unwanted passes and comments to those they work with and whom they pastor.  We have leaders who are gay but won’t admit it – who then have sex with someone of the same sex – and then chastise those who work for them, who are in openly gay relationships, for doing the same.

    It is a despicable abuse of power by those who believe that their only sin is getting caught. So, they get away with it because they can, because of the power they hold and exert over those in their charge. And many of us in the Church know about it and feel powerless to stop it.

    None of us, of course, are guiltless – indeed we all fall short of what God expects from us at times.  But that is why we need to be far more humble, pastoral and sensitive about how we, those of us in positions of power – whether actual power or perceived power, speak out about these things.

    Our nation is, I believe, totally bewildered by an institution that exists supposedly to promote the unconditional love of God, and yet is so judgemental and hypocritical in the way that some of its leaders speak out about it and model it in their own lives.

    It’s time for change.

    It’s time to challenge the hypocrisy and speak out about abuse of power.

    It’s time, I believe, that we developed a healthy positive Biblical understanding of the fact that God made us all sexual human beings.

    More importantly, we need to learn to speak about sex in the context, always, of love – of loving, faithful committed relationships – in all their diverse forms.

    Friends, the Church needs to recognise that sex is not the competition!

    It is part of who we are.  It is part of how God has made us.  It is a gift from God, which when enjoyed in a loving faithful relationship between two equals helps us understand the true nature of Christ’s union with His Church.

    For God lives in relationship, always. It’s so simple and yet so profound.

    Would that we, the Church, were able to teach, embrace and celebrate it!

    The full version of the speech can be read here.

     

  • Toxic Masculinity and the Church

    by the Revd Peterson Feital, Founder of The Haven+ London and Missioner to the Creative Industries for the Diocese of London (aka the ‘Showbiz Rev’)

    Peterson Feital

    When Gillette released a short film, We Believe to mark the 30th Anniversary of the famous company slogan: “The best a man can get!” it took the social media by storm.

    The two minute video is a reflection on cultural shifts about what a “real man” is expected to be in the twenty-first century.  Real men don’t bully others; they are not macho guys objectifying women, they don’t stand for sexual harassment. Real men (especially fathers) do not encourage retaliation between boys in a playground.

    The film builds to a point where men start to look at themselves in a mirror, whilst news reports of #MeToo and toxic masculinity play in the background. A voiceover asks, “Is this the best a man can get?” The answer is “no” and the film then shows how men can do better by actively pointing out toxic behaviour.

    The campaign was loved and hated – however, whatever people’s reaction, it began to show something far more critical: signs of real change.

    In my work with The Haven+ London, a charity that provides emotional, spiritual and mental well-being support to creatives in London, I found myself supporting individuals working on the controversial film “The Untouchable, the rise and the fall of Harvey Weinstein”.

    I sobbed throughout the screening – these were angry tears.  I couldn’t help but see the dichotomy between men who knew Weinstein to be a predator and either choose to keep their heads down for fear of losing their jobs or alternatively chose to go along with his behaviour as they saw it as “normal” for Hollywood.

    Interestingly, the baton has been picked up by the Italian fashion label, Emergenildo Zegna, launching their own campaign #WhatMakesaMan. It’s a challenge to toxic masculinity. They show that the tired image of the stereotypical macho man – virile, leading, decisive, strong, white and middle class – is no longer viewed as the right expression of masculinity.

    The campaign worked.  As I looked at one of the billboards in London tears, again, rolled down my face.  It seemed a movie of my life filled with painful flashbacks was being replayed, and as I watched it I was forced to acknowledge the toxic masculinity that has deeply affected me ever since I was a kid.

    More importantly, I realised that it was the Church that had endorsed and participated in it.  For the Church is definitely not immune to toxic masculinity.

    My life has been marked by domestic violence and sexual abuse, which led me to attempt to commit suicide at the age five years old, initiated panic attacks and the outset of an eating disorder.   My relationship with my father was volatile and filled with rejection; I wasn’t the normal boy he expected; I hated football, which is a cardinal sin in Brazil for a boy. Instead, I love the arts and preferred hanging out with the girls, and I was never ashamed of my tears.

    This pattern continued into adulthood, as male vicars in the Church supported my dad’s views and made me know that I was not fit for ministry. For them, I was too effeminate, flamboyant and sensitive.  I was told I behaved like a butterfly, and “God doesn’t like butterfly man!”

    I learned to reject myself, I became aggressive, arrogant and domineering.  I started to objectify women. And whenever I met another man who was effeminate I bullied him. Fortunately God showed me some time ago now how terrible it was that my heart was once filled with so much hate, which had never come from Him.

    In coming to the UK I hoped for a better life in a Church which I thought wasn’t rooted in the same macho culture – one I hoped would be more accepting and less judgemental.  Instead I was faced with the same deep prejudice.  Some vicars in the charismatic evangelical tribe made it very clear to me that they too found me to be excessively happy, too flamboyant and camp.  Some went as far as miming my gesticulation back at me, to mimic my voice at staff meetings and weekends away.   I was shamed again.

    But this is what I have learned from God; there isn’t anything wrong with masculinity. However, there is something terribly wrong with toxic masculinity and how men can often behave.

    God himself held King David’s behaviour accountable when he used his power to possess Bathsheba and kill her husband. God held David’s behaviour accountable for being an absent father to his children, which took Absalom to a bitter place. God held David accountable when he didn’t act accordingly to protect his daughter Tamar.  God does hold men accountable and we need to learn the art to do the same for each other and for one another, in love.

    In the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 we find a Father who displays all the traits of what I believe a “real man” should show – he runs to his son to celebrate him, he hugs his son, kisses his son, he lavishes love on his son.  This is the true measure of a healthy masculinity – one that embraces other men in spite of their failures.  Here we find a father who is willing to build up his son – he doesn’t reject him, he doesn’t shame him, and he doesn’t turn him away emotionally.

    Many people think of themselves as the prodigals in the parable and so miss a vital point – that the challenge here is for us all to become like the Father. Power must be exercised in the context of love, always.  Powerful men should look into the eyes of other men with respect and affirmation, and so celebrate all.  Especially those who do not conform to the stereotypical male image.

    The shift for men like myself is to learn to love ourselves truly – to hug ourselves and celebrate ourselves for making it through another day, for being different, for acting differently, and to hold and challenge other men who say we don’t measure up.  The key is to be free and to have the courage to be ourselves and own our own story.

    As Henri Nouwen, beautifully wrote, it is ‘to look not with the eyes of my low self –esteem, but with the eyes of God’s love’.

    Peterson Feital

  • Transphobic Letters, Mansplaining & Male Violence.

    by the Revd Canon Rosie Harper, Chaplain to the Bishop of Buckingham and Member of General Synod.

    Rosie Haarper

    How many more ways can some Christians find to express their bigotry and judgementalism?

    I spent last Saturday morning on a study day, working at the development of the Oxford Diocesan Vision trying to find ways of communicating the love of God to this generation. I then open the paper on Sunday morning to see the nation being treated to an open letter to the Bishops which is a  hopeless expression of transphobia. How long can I go on telling people that I’m ‘not that kind of Christian’?

    Of course, as with all religious sexism and homophobia the denial is total.

    It’s renamed as being faithful to God’s word. Frankly I’m done with colluding with that game. Let’s simply name it. And let’s not spiritualise it. In our society there is plenty of pernicious prejudice, so of course it will be in the Church too.

    The letter in The Times, signed by over 1500 people however led me to a darker place. A place that we really must not talk about. In essence it was a violent document. I guess I wasn’t that surprised because it had all the classic trademarks – soapy Christian words of pseudo acceptance and compassion masking the fact that they were using their power to try and force the Bishops, who had gently and pastorally reached a good place, to backtrack. Assuming rights over other people’s conscience is both cruel, and, when it takes away people’s identity a form of violation – or violence. As I scrolled down the list of signatories I saw that the vast majority were male. I did a rough trawl through the names and it seems that between 3- 4% of the clergy were women.

    So yes, the letter was a trigger. We need to talk about male violence. We are just not allowed to talk about it.

    One of my Christmas break reads was Men Explain Things To Me by Rebecca Solnit. In the opening essay she does a sparkling romp through ‘mansplaining’. Ha! So true, so very true.  The guts of the book is the the essay The Longest War. She is very clear: ‘Violence doesn’t have a race, a class, a religion, or a nationality, but it does have a gender.’ She goes on to look at the horrifying level of violence in the world; rape, murder, and of course warfare. She then examines the ways in which we try to understand what is going on. We talk about growing up in poverty, but women are poor too. We talk about exposure to tobacco in the womb, but the girl babies don’t grow up to be rapists. In the US we talk about the availability of guns, but they are available to everyone and  90% of murder is committed by men. We search for reasons and many might be valid enough, but none address the simple fact that almost all the violence in the world is male.

    Whenever I go near this subject the first response I get is ‘but men suffer from  violence too. Not all domestic violence is on women.’ This is true. Although most of the violence men experience is by other men, in domestic violence there are appalling examples of violence by women. On the whole however, the relatively small number of cases tend to result in less severe injuries, or, very occasionally in murder after years and years of abuse by the male partner.

    Thankfully most men are not violent in an extreme way. I know, love and admire many men that I feel safe with. Even they however would mostly buy into the suggestion for example, that football is a healthy way for men and boys to subjugate their latent violence.

    I think what I want to say is that if we think we have a gospel that is worth preaching then it has to face this most fundamental issue and have something transformative to say about it. If we imagine we are going to change to world by working out if God wants gay people to sleep with one another we are seriously down a blind alley. Ask any decent human being ‘what is their deepest wish for this world?’ and it always has to be peace. An end to violence; between individuals, between tribes, between nations.

    That is exactly what the cross is about. Jesus was taken to the place of the utmost violence and made the choice of sacrifice and love. The potential for transforming the world lies in that choice. It is there, and maybe only there that hope can be found.

    I used to wonder why God didn’t enter the world as a woman, but now I see. Jesus had to be male. As a man, hanging on the cross, forgiving those who visited violence on God he was truly able to embody a different way.

    I wish I knew how to inject some urgency into this matter. Elaine Storkey, in her tough and timely book Scars across Humanity points to the source of hope: ‘the Christian faith offers a biblical framework for understanding it (male violence)  and the power of God’s love to combat it’ (although the word combat is itself a violent word) and she ends her book with book with this plea: ‘Ending the violence is urgent. The scars across humanity are deep. It is time to join the healing and the work of restorative justice.’

    Amen sister!

  • Toxic Masculinity & Our Use of Pronouns

    by the Revd Canon Rosie Harper, Chaplain to the Bishop of Buckingham

    Rosie Haarper

    Archbishop Justin has some gay friends. He knows them and likes them, and indeed he thinks their relationships are fabulous. So it’s not personal. There is however a way of treating gay people in the Church which has been normalised. There is a level of emotional, spiritual a and verbal abuse which is woven into the fabric of the institution. It  almost feels as if there is a fault line in human nature which cannot be changed. The latest flurry over “Living in Love and Faith” (aka the Teaching Document), we hear, is about the fact it is all happening on the condition that the status quo is upheld.

    Well, I’m feeling the same about men!

    I know some fabulous men. People I admire, respect and love as individuals. This week however, has left me thinking that gender wars are at the root of most of the evil in the world. I am experiencing a sort of despair. There has been a perfect storm.

    I  really struggled with my reaction to the unfolding story in America around the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Virtually everyone knows that Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth, but they still went ahead and appointed Kavanaugh.

    In a way we are familiar with the politicalisation  of patriarchy in the Republican Party. What dug the knife in though was the role of the Conservative Christian lobby.

    As an email I received from Faith America on October 7th usefully summarised:

    ‘Franklin Graham said attempted rape was “not relevant.“

    Jerry Falwell Jr. bussed hundreds of Liberty University students to Capitol Hill to rally in support of Kavanaugh as Christine Blasey Ford testified.

    An official at Catholic University tweeted that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers should be treated as a “perp,” not a victim.

    If you want to understand why Republicans are voting lockstep to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, look no further than the religious right.

    For decades conservatives having been telling Christians to vote Republican because of sexual morality. It’s time to end the charade.’

    There is a not a calm, measured way to react to this stuff. I’m sorry, but it makes me want to vomit.

    In case you think it’s just Christians, The Times reported (8/10/2019) that Amazon has a scheme that supports the extremist Muslim cleric Haritha al Haddad who condones child marriage, FGM, and stoning people for adultery. He naturally believes that women should remain in the home and not have independence or complain when their husbands beat them.

    Ironically in the same edition of the paper there is a report on research that shows that the quality and quantity of men’s sperm is falling so rapidly that were it to continue the future of the human race would be in doubt. Too many pies it seems!

    Does it HAVE to be like this?

    Is this actually what the story of Genesis is all about? Are we being given an insight into the root cause of so much of our cruelty and suffering?

    What most women experience is that “toxic masculinity” has invaded our families , our workplaces, our schools, our politics  and our churches. Patriarchal ideologies are the norm. The Church has been horribly silent in the face of violence and abuse against women. We don’t talk about it even though in our congregations there will be many, some say 87% of women who have experienced some form of harassment, and one in 6 who have been the victim of rape or attempted rape.

    Why? Why when our message is about love and transformation and healing, is the Church not the one place where things are different? The one place where we can model a way of justice and equality. It’s all in the bible after all.

    Deep breath. But I’m going to say it……

    It’s because “God is male”.

    At the deepest level we have chosen to create an image of God which colludes with the toxicity of male dominance. So much religious language is violent. It is about heroic leadership, Kingship, subjection, dominance. It’s about who wins and who looses. It’s about punishment and reward. There are wars, physical and spiritual. Every level of oppressive patriarchy is right there in our holy text.

    Of course I hear our feminist theologians. You don’t have to read it that way, but we do. Instead of turning the script on it’s head we use it to reinforce male dominance at every turn.

    This is about so much more than making a few women bishops. This asks us all if there is a way in which Christianity can be so counter-cultural that inhabits a universe that is free form gender war at every level.

    To even begin to make that happen we need to talk about pronouns.

    While God goes on being caricatured as ‘he’ the conversation cannot even begin.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    .

     

  • Sex & the Single Girl

    by Dr Meg Warner, Theologian, Lecturer and Member of General Synod

    Meg Warner

    In all of the excitement about that sermon, some of the striking aspects of the royal wedding were perhaps slightly overlooked. The world watched an American divorcée marry into the Royal Family, with its full approval. Yes, some of them looked decidedly uncomfortable, but that was more about the preaching of the first black Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church than about the bride. She herself entered Windsor Chapel alone, with no man to support her for most of the long walk down the aisle – just some winningly emotional children. It looked more like a coronation than a wedding. And Meghan’s mother, also alone, won more admiration for her composure than she did sympathy for her solitariness.

    Even fifty years ago none of this would have been thinkable.

    Prior to the wedding, Harry and Meghan lived together in Nottingham Cottage at Kensington Palace, and spoke openly about their camping holidays. That wouldn’t have been thinkable fifty years ago either. And that got me thinking about the Scriptures and sex before marriage.

    It is clear in the Scriptures that sex before marriage is considered a Bad Thing. God, however, doesn’t have much to say on the matter, and it seems apparent that the antipathy toward sexual activity between unmarried people is essentially cultural. In other words, while it is taken for granted in most places in the Scriptures that women should not have sex before they are married (eg. Deut 22:20-21), this is less reflective of divine viewpoint than it is adoptive of prevalent community attitudes. I should add that there is nothing in the Old Testament, at least, prohibiting unmarried men from engaging in sexual activity with unmarried women. (The Old Testament just happens to be my field, but it also has far more discussion of sexuality than the New.)

    In order to understand what the Scriptures have to say about sexual activity on the part of unmarried women, and what community views the Scriptures are adopting, you need to know a little about the status of women in biblical times. In order to function in society each woman needed to ‘belong’ to a man. A woman needed to be the daughter or wife or (in extremis) sister of a man in order to have any kind of life or security. And I say ‘belong’ advisedly. Women were in a very real sense the property of the men to whom they belonged. A vital part of any marriage negotiation was the ‘mohar’ or ‘bride price’ that a prospective groom would pay to the bride’s father (eg. 1 Sam 18:25). Each of the provisions in the Torah about sexual activity on the part of an unmarried woman is prompted, at least in part, by concerns about this mohar (or about the deal that a husband is getting in exchange). So, for example, Exodus says that if a man seduces an unmarried woman he must marry her (after giving her father the mohar). In other words, if a man has sex with an unmarried woman, thereby rendering her unmarriageable, he must pay the price that her father could have expected from a prospective suitor, and if her father refuses to give her to him in marriage he must pay the mohar regardless (Exod 21:16-17). Deuteronomy adds that if the seduction is violent the girl’s father has no choice in the matter – he must give his daughter in marriage to her abuser, but the abuser must pay the girl’s father 50 silver shekels and will never be permitted to divorce her (Deut 22:28). We can’t imagine this being great for the girl, but the girl’s father gets the mohar and the whole family – including the girl – is protected from the shame and burden of future divorce.

    On the other side of the bargain, if a man alleges that his wife was not a virgin when he married her, and her family is unable to provide proof of her virginity, the woman is to be taken to the entrance of her father’s house and stoned to death (because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house, Deut 22:20-21). And if this sounds to you like pretty clear evidence that God isn’t in favour of sex before marriage, remember that the woman in question is now married, and that the problem is that her husband hasn’t got what he paid for.

    Even Leviticus’ incest laws (Leviticus 18 and 20) appear to be predicated upon the issue of bride price. Where a man commits incest the problem is arguably not so much the closeness of the relationship as the fact that he has trespassed on the property rights of another man. Disturbing support for this is found in the fact that Leviticus has no prohibition on sexual activity between a man and his daughters.

    If we, today, look to the Scriptures for guidance about ethics (and I’m convinced we should), then we need to be aware, too, of the cultural milieu that formed them, and also of how ethics changed and developed, even in biblical times, with the surrounding culture. Change is happening in our culture, too, as Meghan and Harry have amply demonstrated.

    Perhaps our interpretation and application of Scriptures should change and develop with it? Of course, they already do. We no longer marry girls off to their rapists or stone them to death for ‘prostituting themselves in the fathers’ houses’. Imagine preaching either of those things post-#metoo!

    We need to get more honest and intentional about the fact that we are all ‘revisionists’. Only then will we be able truly to be faithful to the Scriptures.

     

  • Royal Weddings & Lady Bishops – Time for Change?

    by the Revd Dr Hayley Matthews, Director of Lay Training, Diocese of Leeds

    Meghan & VivPictures: Meghan Markle (left); Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean of York (right)

    Dashing in for long shorts for my son, not wanting to miss a moment of spring sunshine, the supermarket’s t-shirts slogans took me by surprise: ‘When Harry met Meghan’ filled the foyer in all sorts of glittering shapes and sizes.

    Marriage mania was clear with tiaras and well wishes to be seen in every shop front along the parade, from the bargain outlet to Harvey Nicks.  Sadly, Meghan’s own father is not getting quite such a good press as the red-tops persist in digging for dirt. When none is to be found, resorting to the unflattering photograph leads to idle if not malicious speculation.

    All to be expected, perhaps, and now that it has been confirmed that Meghan’s father will no longer walk her down the aisle. Headlines have commented that this departure from ‘tradition’ in which a father or other male relative is expected to ‘give away’ their female offspring as if ‘owned’ has not been warmly received by the Royal family, while a Royal Commentator suggested on Radio 4 that ‘the woman who gave birth to her should [walk her down the aisle]’ as a positive solution to Meghan’s father being indisposed.

    It defies belief that in the 21st century an independent woman might need to be ‘given away’ by her father and not accompanied in mutual love by the woman who has nurtured her throughout her childhood and well into adulthood.  Such rank misogyny leaves me breathless in the 21st century on a day when Vivienne Faull was announced as the 15th female bishop, following Mike Hill as Bishop of Bristol.  Dean Faull has pioneered women’s ministry for decades from the moment she was the first woman to train for ordination at St John’s College, Nottingham going on to be one of the first women deacons in 1982, becoming Chaplain of Gloucester Cathedral in 1990. In 1994, she was among the first women to be ordained priest, becoming Canon Pastor of Coventry Cathedral.

    Coming full circle after a series of high-ranking church roles Dean Faull whose own mother was brought up in Bristol, said on Tuesday that the move would be ‘like returning home’ as she becomes Bishop of a diocese that was the first to ordain women as priests 24 years ago.  Dean Faull declared that she wanted ‘the diocese to continue to show that pioneering courage.’ Those are not empty words coming from the first woman to head the chapter of an English cathedral.

    These two women will both experience the Church of England at her best, one in St George’s Chapel, Windsor as she marries into the family whose Matriarch not only heads up the Monarchy she is to join, but who is indeed the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Harry’s Father would surely never hear Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II referred to as ‘the woman who gave birth to him’? Such rank disrespect of any woman beggars belief, particularly from BBC Radio 4 who spent an entire season exploring the ‘locker-room’ language of men towards women.

    Dean Faull, on the other hand, will be consecrated as the 57th Bishop of Bristol at a service at St Paul’s Cathedral on 3 July, and installed at Bristol Cathedral in the autumn, experiencing the moving magnificence of a service of consecration that continues to mark the historic unfolding of an egalitarian respect of gender, ecclesiology and episcopal order in the Church of England. No doubt she, too, will encounter moments of disrespect, challenge and demeaning language as she continues her pioneering ministry in the ongoing field of firsts.

    Dean Faull has been quoted as saying, “what has been lovely over the past four years is to see [women] emerging as bishops, suffragan or diocesan, and watch how they have begun to establish themselves in very different ways, and be themselves, which is transformative of the Church and perceptions of the Church.” (Church Times, May 15th 2018)

    Meghan Markle will also emerge and establish herself as a Duchess in very different ways to those who have married into the Windsors before, and we know ow well that went for both Princess Diana, Harry’s Mum, and his Aunt, Sarah Ferguson.  However difficult their journey’s, their advent was and continues to be transformative for the Royal family as women bishops are to the Church. Being herself whilst also being a Royal will be a profound challenge in terms of who she is as well as within her new role as a Princess by marriage.

    Both Ms Markle and Dean Faull are women making history this year; breaking new ground, heading into territory as yet uncharted by any other woman before them. They deserve the respect and support of those within the institutions they are joining in order to fully flourish and grow into the enormity of the mantles being thrust upon them. Each will bear burdens large and small, bearable and unbearable as the full weight of their tiara/mitre settles upon them.

    Perhaps it is time for us all to put down our rocks and pointed pens and to begin a sea-change of kindness and forgiveness where we acknowledge the imperfections of these mere human beings thrust into as harsh a spotlight as can be imagined. Is it not the time for cynicism to give way to true Christian charity as to make space for the ‘other’ to flourish and grow, seeing what the new and unexpected has to offer us in terms of enriching and enlivening that which has become so perfectly predictable as to become more pride and prejudice than sense and sensibility?

    To both Dean Faull and Meghan Markle I raise my hat – may they each flourish as only human beings can as they find their place in our dearly beloved Church; and as they find their place may the love of God, surrounding and upholding them, been seen in and through them, and in all their works within the Church and beyond, to the glory of God. Amen.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • The Slow Death of Patriarchy

    by Jayne Ozanne, Director of Ozanne Foundation and Editor of ViaMedia.News

    Hartley_Bishop09207-920x486

    On International Women’s Day 2018 we learnt the sad reality that nearly two-thirds of women have experienced sexism in Church, with over half citing “institutional sexism” as being the primary reason for blocking their progress and “being all that they are called to be”.[1]

    On the very same day we heard the Counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse quote from a statement by Roger Meekings (who produced the 2009 report into known cases of abusers in the diocese), that: “The dominant or prevailing culture of the Diocese of Chichester with regard to women may have had a significant influence” in regard to safeguarding.[2]

    Indeed, only a few days earlier we heard a former diocesan safeguarding officer, Shirley Hosgood, suggest that safeguarding in the Chichester diocese was “impeded in part by tensions over authority arising between senior male clergy and female lay church officers, including herself.”[3]

    These are shocking indictments for a 21st century Church in modern day Europe.

    What is even more shocking, however, is that for many of us this is not news at all!  Quite frankly, we have been aware of this for years, and yet relatively little has been done to address it.

    This begs the question “Why?”

    Why has the Church, unlike any other public institution been allowed to continue with such deference to a patriarchal way of being – in a way unlike any other?  It seems even more unfathomable when we reflect on the fact that over 65% of the UK Church are female[4].

    I have a rather uncomfortable suggestion to make….

    Maybe it is in part because over 65% of the UK Church are female!

    You see, an organisation with such a strong bias towards female members is likely to actively attract male leaders who, let’s face it, like to be in dominant positions of authority over women.  For those who believe in a male headship model, this type of institution is a dream!  The Church can provide a place, unlike any other, with lots of subservient women just sitting there waiting to be lead.  Many of these women have imbibed a message of male headship without even questioning it, underpinned with teachings enforcing God as “Father” and Jesus as “male” without any counter teachings of female narratives, such as Wisdom being referred to as “female”.

    Controversial as I know this sounds, I can’t help feeling that one of the reasons we are where we are today is because of our desire to perpetuate an unhealthy co-dependent relationship between those with a pathological need to lead with those with a pathological need to follow.

    The problem is that ultimately co-dependency always bears bad fruit – and it is this we are finally being forced to recognise now.  The most tragic of which appears to be coming out in the IICSA hearings, where the concerns of a female safeguarding officers appear not have been heeded.

    Thank goodness there are now those who are actively looking to address this disastrous imbalance within the Church – but it will take more than a few senior female appointments to do so.

    Whilst the appointment of Bishop Sarah Mullally to the third most senior position in the Church of England is a welcome start, it will require a determined change of heart by all those within the Church – both lay and ordained – for the over-riding culture to be changed in the longer term.

    And for that we need to address the underlying power issues, and that requires thousands of men (who love being in charge) to be willing to relinquish their power.  A first step would at least be to recognise the barrier that they have been to the mutual flourishing of their fellow Christians.

    Yes, of course there are issues of theology at stake here, but that too can be a smoke screen for a more imbedded misogynistic culture that has been allowed to continue unchecked.

    So how do we help facilitate this change?

    My proposal would be for a formal act of repentance and contrition by the Church for the significant harm that has been done by institutional sexism – which has constantly preferred men over women.  In this season of Lent, let us look to recognise and repent of the flawed teachings that have sought to subjugate women and keep them from fulfilling their God-given callings.

    “But what about the Five Guiding Principles?” I hear people cry. “Would such an act be consistent with that?!”

    My firm answer is “Absolutely, yes!”  In fact, without it, we cannot hope to truly embrace the Five Guiding Principles as there has yet to be any formal recognition that a significant part of the Body of Christ has, for far too long, been purposefully kept from flourishing.

    So, Church, are we prepared to finally recognise the damage that our sexist teachings have wreaked over the years?  Are we willing to repent and commit ourselves – at every level of the Church – to a new way of thinking, that values the gifts and callings of all?

    Will we call out bad behaviour when we see it?  Will we challenge sexist attitudes when we encounter them?  Will we speak out when we see female colleagues treated as “less than”?

    For Christ’s sake, I hope so, as then future generations of women may finally begin to flourish!

     

    [1] “Minding The Gap” research report, Page 12-13, issued by Sophia Network March 8th 2018

    [2] Day 3 of IICSA inquiry

    [3] Church Times, March 9th 2018

    [4] “Minding The Gap” research report, Page 6, issued by Sophia Network March 8th 2018

  • Divine Headship Meets Woman Bishop

    by the Very Revd Dr David Ison, Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral

    David ison 2

    I’ll be taking part later this week in the ceremony at which Bishop Sarah Mullally will become the first woman Bishop of London, 24 years on from the first ordinations of women as priests. Most of us in London are looking forward to working with her in living and sharing the Christian Gospel in this city.

    And there’s an opportunity and a challenge here; how to hold together as a diocese in a Church which affirms that women can truly be bishops, and that its members can believe that they can’t.

    Anglo-Catholics who don’t accept women as priests or bishops do this because much of the rest of the Church of God  (in particular the Roman Catholic Church) does not: if that church did, however, most of them would. But there’s a particular problem for conservative evangelicals: thus the organisation Reform believes in ‘The unique value of women’s ministry in the local congregation but also the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests in charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate.’

    I grew up as a Christian in a lively conservative evangelical church on the edge of London, whose vicar is a lovely fellow-member of General Synod for whom I have great respect, who is a long-term member of Reform, which was started in 1993 following the passing of legislation allowing women to be ordained priests. He’s written an article about Reform in this month’s edition of New Directions magazine, on the occasion of Reform’s 25th anniversary.

    He and I would (I think) agree on the core message of the Christian gospel, and disagree on some of the ways in which that works out in practice. We would agree on the authority of Scripture, but not on all the ways in which Scripture is interpreted and used. Both of us would regard ourselves as working at being faithful disciples of Jesus Christ our Saviour, and have questions about how the other is doing that. And I want to pose a particular question which this raises, as we move to having a woman bishop in London as a practical reality rather than a theoretical possibility.

    In the Reform statement above, it looks like the word inappropriate really means ‘just plain wrong, but we don’t want to make it a resigning matter’.  After all, most clergy can avoid working under the authority of women – until they become their archdeacons or bishops, of course, and in London this will now be a reality for all clergy in the diocese, whether they choose to admit it or not. How they will respond with integrity will be an important test of the Five Principles by which the Church of England has agreed to order its divided life on this issue.

    But the phrase that really needs to be questioned here is the divine order of male headship. The use of that adjective divine seems as inappropriate as in the phrase ‘the divine right of kings’.  Referring to a divine order of male headship claims that God has ordained that men will hold authority, headship, over other men and all women, and that this is therefore not a human choice but a divine command.

    Remember that people went to their deaths or left the Church of England over the biblically sanctioned doctrine of the Christian monarch being anointed by God as His representative on earth. The Book of Common Prayer still prays for the personal government of the king – or queen, which is curious if divine order requires male headship. But in an age of universal education, when autocratic force has been replaced by democratic government, who now believes in ‘the divine right of kings’? We have to be very cautious about appropriating God inappropriately, to give sanction to human rather than divine will.

    Unlike ‘the divine right of kings’, parts of the Church uphold the assertion of the divine order of male headship, leading in some instances to inappropriate conduct in relation to women incumbents and other women clergy, and to the necessity for institutionalised discrimination against them in the name of safeguarding the conscience of others. Women still bear the cost of men insisting that only they should be in authority. And Bishop Sarah in London will have to work with those who will not accept her spiritual authority, on the grounds of divine order, simply because she is a woman.

    Those who argue for male headship do so on the grounds of particular scriptures. But note the conclusion of Dr Ian Paul in his 2011 Grove Booklet Women in Authority: The Key Biblical Texts. After looking at the most commonly used verses, he concludes that they do not support the divine order of male headship, but rather that they emphasise the interdependence of men and women in church leadership. He says:  ‘On a personal note, engaging again with these texts has been a challenging and transforming experience for me…. I have been struck afresh by the radically egalitarian and counter-cultural nature of what Scripture says about gender, and the challenge to the church to be constantly reformed and reshaped by Scripture’s perspective, even if that means letting go of cherished traditions of interpretation.’

    Reading one booklet doesn’t usually change people’s minds, when their view is supported by a whole tradition of church teaching and practice, though writing the booklet caused Dr Paul to change his. But to call male headship a ‘divine order’ when Scripture is not clear that it is, and when we believe in God who is neither male nor female, is to overstate the case – and is itself inappropriate.   As is disassociating ourselves from our Christian sisters and brothers with whom we disagree.

    Dr Paul clearly states that in scripture the issue of headship is different from that of same-sex relationships. But the issue remains of how with regard to that issue, as with headship and in other areas of Christian disagreement, Christians with different views are going to be open to welcome and challenge and transformation of ourselves and each other, unless we engage in depth with one another and refrain from referring to what we currently believe as divine.

    There’s a spectrum even of evangelical thinking on these issues, not because some are ‘revisionists’ or ‘liberals’, but because like Dr Paul they have been challenged by Scripture and the Holy Spirit to be re-formed in their thinking, in all sincerity: and understanding that those with different views are still committed disciples of Jesus Christ will help us to listen more closely to what God is saying – to each of us.

    All of this is part of the richness and diversity of the Church, where we need each other’s perspectives to be continually semper reformanda, as the New Directions article notes, always reforming, always being renewed by God; as we also need the Catholic emphasis on sacraments and depth of prayer, and the Anglican application of reason.

    We need different perspectives because all of us have a view which we think is the right one: a view which is built, not only (and not necessarily) on encounter with God in Scripture and the Spirit, but which is also derived and maintained from a whole range of other sources; from what our parents and friends and teachers thought and think, to our life experience and our cultural context, including our own psychological make-up.

    From metrosexual London to rural Africa, all of us need challenging by the understanding and experience of God which our fellow-Christians have to share, and to be enriched by it. But in order to have both challenge and growth, we need to listen to one another, and not live, as we tend, to in separate worlds where people with different views in a diocese or in General Synod don’t have dialogue in depth with each other about what we have in common and why we disagree.

    Let’s see if in the Diocese of London it can be different.

  • Power, Abuse and the Sense of Entitlement

    by the Rt Revd David Walker, Bishop of Manchester

    david-walker

    Ten years or so ago we learned that significant numbers of UK politicians were taking an extremely generous view as to what constituted legitimate expenses. In the last few weeks we’ve discovered that many even more well known figures, here and across the globe, have abused their position by demanding sex, or at least acquiescence to woefully improper remarks, from those more junior to themselves. Between these two lies, I believe, a clear connecting thread, it is their sense of entitlement

    Many MPs had felt their salaries were artificially depressed by the likely public backlash to any government awarding them a large increase. Surrounded by lobbyists and senior figures whose pay packets suffered no such restrictions, they felt entitled to more than they were receiving. They saw the expenses system as a way of getting their due. The more recent revelations, beginning with the exposure of an American film producer, have a similar foundation. Powerful men, used to getting what they want, felt entitled to receive, or at least ask for, sexual favours from those who needed their backing or support.

    The language of entitlement is, first and foremost, the language of the rich and powerful. They have succeeded, and promote their entitlement to the full spoils of their triumph. One of the most powerful symbols of success is the ability to control and determine the language in which conversation can take place. Other groups in society, including the marginal and victimised, are then forced to adopt the same terms, to stake their own entitlement, in competition. They may have occasional victories, but the underlying power dynamic is at best only lightly challenged.

    But what if there were a different language to speak?

    To my way of thinking, Christian theology provides us with just such a vocabulary. It gives us words such as grace and justice, liberation and self-emptying, and it populates their meaning through a rich range of stories.

    The call to self-emptying, kenosis as the Greek word puts it, is a call to those with power to model themselves on the Christ who “did not cling to equality with God”, but became like us so that we might become like him. This early hymn on the incarnation, which reverberates with particular strength in Advent, is a call to place ourselves on a level footing with those whom secular opinion would set us above. Self-emptying makes room for grace, the recognition that our hope lies not in what we deserve but in what is given us undeserving. Liberation then underpins our understanding of a justice that is not simply a restoration of what has been lost but a journey into a new freedom and empowerment.

    Lest this all sound rather abstract, or relevant only to the most churchy issues, let me offer an example from well beyond the altar rail. As chair of the Manchester Homelessness Partnership Board, I encourage the exercise of kenosis by insisting that no meeting takes place unless there are enough people with personal experience of life on the streets for them to have power and voice among us. Whether around a table or working by less conventional methods, everyone has equal status and is part of the answer. Grace keeps us from stigmatising or blaming those whose life events, and sometimes their choices, have led them to fetch up sleeping rough. Justice holds before us an image of a society where the basic necessities of a safe and secure home, shared with ones chosen household, are there for all, a vision to which all our efforts must strive. Liberation reminds us that we will only achieve this vision when we set people free from the chains that bind them, be they mental health concerns, addiction or the loneliness of lost relationship.

    Our meetings and events have an energy and sense of purpose well beyond many others I attend. And whilst the challenges are huge, and the ever increasing numbers of homeless daunting, I do believe we are ditching the tired battle between entitlement claims and creating a new culture, one with the possibility for real change.

    My Advent prayer is that the powerful and public figures of our society, including faith leaders like myself, can consistently speak this better language.

     

  • “Cassock Chasers” and Compromised Clergy

    by the Very Revd Dr David Ison, Dean of St Paul’s

    David ison 2

    Some recent blogging about sexual abuse and harassment in the Church of England has referred to ‘cassock chasers’. When I read it, it was a phrase new to me; but finding out what it meant was a revelation, in two ways. It’s not only that women are afraid to complain about male clergy harassment because they’ll be dismissed as ‘cassock chasers’, women who pursue priests and look for revenge when their feelings aren’t reciprocated. But it’s also that some male clergy actually do stereotype women in this way, similar to how many men inside as well as outside the Church may see women, not as people, but as sexual stereotypes – ‘gels’, ‘slags’, ‘slappers’ or worse, to be defined by men’s desires and fears, not understood for who they really are.

    Some will say, ‘It’s just a joke’, the dishonest defence of bullies everywhere But it isn’t, is it? That the phrase even exists, that any cleric could think of a woman as a ‘cassock-chaser’, that any woman could fear being treated as one, is a symptom of how deep-rooted the problem of patriarchal control is in the Church of England. To call someone a ‘cassock chaser’ is no joke, but a shallow, stereotyped and sexualised male-centred response to a person’s pastoral need.

    There are many people we encounter in pastoral work who long for love, affection and intimacy. Some may respond to the loving pastoral care of a priest or other caring person by transferring their feelings to them, perhaps projecting onto them their image of an idealised partner.

    A professional and caring pastor will handle those feelings carefully, and find ways to help the person concerned, even if because of the person’s mental illness, or because of the transference taking place, they aren’t able to help the person directly.

    An inadequate pastor will be flattered or frightened, or assume that it’s all about me the pastor rather than all about them the person in need. If the pastor is also emotionally vulnerable, they can exploit the vulnerability of the person in need who is drawn to them – hence so much emotional and sexual abuse in the church and in other caring organisations. And so the need for robust pastoral structures and practice, proper supervision and the confessional, and for pastors – and men in particular – to know themselves well and be getting help for their own emotional issues. If you don’t understand what transference and projection is, you shouldn’t be in pastoral ministry – you and others will be at risk.

    Part of the same picture of the need for robust structures and practices is the growing call from survivors of abuse like Gilo and others including some bishops* for the Church to set up independent structures for safeguarding and discipline. This should cover the compromised ministry of bishops, who have to administer both pastoral care and discipline; the close relationship between the Church’s main insurer and the Church itself; and the difficulty of trusting bishops and clergy to discipline themselves, set as they are within a network of personal and professional relationships and a complex and difficult legal framework.

    Whether it’s about pastoral care or safeguarding, abuse or harassment, or issues around clergy discipline, the lack of trust generated by many years of poor practice in the Church needs a more urgent and radical response than has happened so far. That response needs to help victims and survivors find help and justice. It should also help bishops and clergy themselves to be secure in their work and ministry, and so reduce the stress on clergy which leads to greater vulnerability to pastoral and personal breakdown – and so the cycle continues. And it needs to stop.

    Let’s pray for the House of Bishops in their reflections on all this when they meet soon. It’s a hard call to agree a vision for the future, and then to change how things are done, when it means admitting the implicit or explicit criticism of how things have been. But it also offers hope, not only for silent victims and struggling survivors, but also for all who work in ministry, that together we can find a way forward that sets one another free.