chatting with a friend

tim over at the friends' meeting house has replied to my comments about new wine in this post. thanks tim :-)

tim is quite positive about new wine in general and suggests we just keep on keeping on. there's something in that of course, and i think it was always my intention - after all if we don't then where does that leave organisations like new wine?

i just wanted to respond to the ordained/non-ordained leadership question that he brings up. i absolutely agree that not all leadership is ordained - of course i do, so does the anglican church, we have different types of leadership, lay and ordained. i am also vehemently opposed to the superiority that some clergy have historically worn along with their dog collar. having said that, i think it is a mark of where an organisation is at if all their ordained leadership is male - you see i just don't believe that this is because they have such disdain for ordination that there really is no distinction for them between ordained and lay leadership, otherwise why be ordained at all? i think that those who oppose women's ordination and who are 'charismatic' would be on a bit of sticky wicket with that one, after all it is the ordained leadership in particular that they have an issue with, so there must be some distinction. for the others it probably is more about, well, exactly what tim says, about them still being stuck in the traditional upper middle class structures where the man brings home the woolly mammoth (although tim puts it in slightly different terms :-).

but essentially this isn't a conversation about women's ordination, it is simply that this is a good marker for what someone generally believes about our humanity. which is why the particular article that hacked me off came under fire from me. it removed women's humanity from the genesis human and, more seriously, from jesus' humanity.

so, tim, you haven't answered the question of why the particular article that tee'd me off ever got to be published in the quarterly magazine that hits thousands of doormats all over the country? how is it that it made it passed the editorial team? it was so bad that i am left with one of three options about what i make of it:

the editors:
a. didn't see the sexism in the piece
b. saw the sexism in the piece but agreed with it
c. saw some sexism in the piece but didn't think it was that bad

feel free to add options. to be honest i'm not sure whether 'a' or 'c' is preferable.

you see, this is the difficulty for me tim - if john coles is for the full humanity of women, as he, you and others are at pains to make clear that he is (and, for the record, i do believe him, you, a.n.other.......), but thinks that he can just sit back and believe it without having to do something about it proactively, then i'm afraid that the prevailing culture will simply do its thing and we will have yet another organisation that has done no real thinking about its own prejudice.

i look forward to the continuing conversation tim.

No comments: