Remember the Phoenix

[Note: having received all kinds of responses about this post, negative, positive and everything in between, I need to clarify a couple of things. Firstly, what I have written is a reflection on the *responses* to this event. Those who have pointed out that we don't know what has happened, are correct, we don't.  Secondly, the point of what I write is that our responses happen regardless, which is evident.  I say below that whatever ordained women 'do', they do as women, even if something is not explicitly about gender because that is the primary way we are interpreted.  We are perceived as *women* priests and it is nonsense to pretend otherwise.  Our responses are based on this perception.  Lastly, the 'She' I write about below is the symbolic ordained woman.]


Most of you will have seen the news that Janet Henderson has resigned her post as the Dean of Llandaff Cathedral due to, as a source has said a 'difficult time since her appointment, with some clergy resenting the appointment of a woman.'

What a gut-punch.

I've heard all kinds of responses on Twitter and Facebook.

Most have been sad and outraged.

Some have likened it to Philip North resigning as Bishop of Whitby.  Now, lots of people won't like what I'm about to type.  Personally, I thought Philip North was courageous for withdrawing from this post, and I admit that I felt rather sad about it all - what have we got ourselves into, I thought.  I don't know how the circle will be squared on this one, and in many senses it would be much easier if I could generate hate and spite for the lot of them - but I can't and I won't.

To fall into cliche...some of my good friends are Forward in Faith (Anglo Catholics who don't think we should ordain women).  In fact one man in particular *always* comes into my mind when I begin to think of people leaving the CofE...because of me.  He's kind and gentle and encouraging, he affirms me and yes, my priesthood, and he loves loves loves Jesus (and Mary ;) ).  I honestly don't know how he does it and stays integrated with his own beliefs about women in the priesthood - I'm not sure that he does, I think it's painful.

So, don't ever tell me that I just want 'them' to leave.

But to compare Philip North's story to that of Janet Henderson is simply offensive.  And here's the bit that people won't like...it is one thing to be the object of hate, spite and derision (we can only imagine the experiences that caused a capable, experienced priest to have to leave), and it is quite another to be told, as Philip North was, that the people who are your objects of exclusion, are not considered such by others - and to hold those people as objects of exclusion is not considered acceptable any more.

It is very different for a woman to say 'I can't stay because I'm a woman', and a man to say 'I can't stay because you're a woman'.  The object remains as the woman - she bears her shame and she bears his distaste. She bears it.

Just to be clear, this is what ordained women in the CofE, and clearly in the CinW, have to live with.  It is in their psyche, their DNA as ordained people.  When we are in a deanery chapter, a synod, a diocese, a meeting - these are the dynamics at play, whether they are overt or not.  This is not to bleat on about it - I know that it's uncomfortable and people want to dismiss it or pretend it's not that bad or say they don't feel it's like that for them.  Yes, I know.  I'm in one of the best Areas of London Diocese, London being not considered 'women friendly'.  My Bishop is out and proud about his affirmation of the ordination and consecration of women, I don't experience overt sexism on a daily basis.  I'm very grateful and love my job.  So I know that some of you hate it when I bring up the fact that we can't really escape the effects of choosing to be in an institution that is ambivalent about us.  An institution where we are the objects of our own and others opinions of us.  I know you don't like me to say that there is only so much of that which can remain external.  Because we're meant to be strong and let it wash off us, right?  But this is the pool that we swim in, and we can't help but drink the water.

So, no, it's not the same thing as Philip North.

Some have said 'she should have stuck it out'.

Ah, now, this is tricky isn't it?  Part of my response to this story was entirely selfish, I don't mind admitting.  Every time a woman soars in the church, becomes who she is meant to be, which includes leading in senior positions - where her capability, her priesthood, her experience, her wisdom is honoured and nourished...every time I see that happen, I can breathe again. Phew...it's possible.  If it's possible for them, then it's possible for me.  I spend a lot of my time in various spaces choosing to be more than I can imagine I can be - I suggest you all do the same - but sometimes I hit a wall.  I run out of imagination.  I know that I need to step into God's imagination, God's understanding of what my potential really is, but sometimes I can't.

And then a story like this hits the headlines, or I hear about another woman who can't find a job, or I get rebuffed from speaking at places where my face doesn't fit, or I see conference after conference where the overwhelming majority of speakers are blokes, or I see women defending their territory because it's so small and that's what they've had to do...for years.  God have mercy.

And it's like a perfect storm.

Sometimes I crash.

So, even though I disagree (who can make that choice for someone else?) I understand the sentiment - 'she should have stuck it out'

She should have stuck it out - so that we can hope.

She should have stuck it out - so that the bullies don't win

She should have stuck it out - so that she can be our symbol

She should have stuck it out - so that the path is forged

And once again *she* is the object.  She bears it.  Our hopes, our desires.  She bears it.

Phoenix

Women in the church at the moment will carry all of this.  We do not simply do the job, we do the job as a woman (I know you don't want it to be so, but it is so).  In front of eyes that hope for us, because we carry their dreams, or in front of eyes that wait for us to fall, because we bear their fears.  It is inevitable at this moment in time.

And sometimes the story is not all 'triumph in the face of adversity', sometimes people die.

But.

Deep breath.

Remember the Phoenix.

A symbol of resurrection, beautiful and bright, burned and born out of the ashes of her demise.

In mythology, the Phoenix has tears which heal and the strength to bear loads way beyond her size.

So remember the Phoenix.  She bears it.

Lord help the Mister, who comes between me and my Sister....

I never used to be a woman's woman.

Don't get me wrong.  I've had women friends, really good friends.

But I would often find myself at home in a group of guys.  In some ways this, sometimes, if I'm honest, felt less complicated.  In a group of Christian women, often there would be expectations as to how I would think or behave, and I constantly had to gently say 'no' or find myself frustrated.  Not all the time you understand, just sometimes.

Anyway, my point is that I often thought of myself as a man's woman.  And I still am, often.  A number of my best friends are men and it's kinda good that I work that way because I'm in a male dominated colleague environment - if I don't relate to guys, I'm in trouble!

Rosie the Riveter

But over the last ten years, I definitely found myself drawn to the sisterhood.  It was like God gave me a burning passion to stand up for myself and in so doing, stand up for all women everywhere.  Perhaps it coincided with my becoming a mother myself, a mother of a girl.  I want her to grow up absolutely bloody convinced at how brilliant she is and for every time she gets called 'bossy', she has a hundred comments backing up how much of a leader she is.  Perhaps it was something to do with my local church becoming a place where misogyny was disguised by theology and I had to choose my way in order to go one way or the other - there was no neutral.

Whatever it was, my eyes were opened to the fact that girls are hobbled before they even demand their first soggy faced, wide-mouthed request for their needs to be met.

And I think we need a few more women who get this.

Women like Rachel Held Evans who embarked on 'Mutuality2012' promoting equal treatment of men and women in the Church.

Paid less than men for the same job

Or my friend Sara Kewly who is taking on High Street chain New Look on their shoddy sexist line of 'Fantasy Football' tee-shirts.

Far too often, as was shown in my previous post, women find themselves working against each other.  Or put into positions where there own vulnerability will be increased hundredfold by seeming to be hypersensitive about the 'womens issues'.  It takes a lot of courage to make yourself vulnerable in those situations.  But it is also that often women literally don't *see* it.  They genuinely do think that people like Rachel and Sara...and me, are making a bit of a fuss about nothing.

When money is scarce, women and girls lack medicine, education, food first

Whereas my point is that what we (I mean us, you and me...yes...you) do, in the relative freedom that women have in the West, has implications for what happens for women globally.  Apart from the fact it makes me laugh that women think they are 'equal' even in the West (see above poster), that is nothing compared to the implications for women in countries and cultures where they bear the brunt of sexism, sometimes with their lives.  I have mentioned before the brilliant article by economist Amartya Sen: More than 100 Million Women are Missing, which everyone should read and weep.  This article should make us see in stark figures, the truth of the cost of sexism.

But often women in the West think that the fight is over, the bras were burned and we should all now become a little more demure about the gender debate.  Women in the Church are, I'm afraid, some of the worst.  Particularly because of some of the dodgy theologies regarding gender which are promulgated.

Which takes me back to my point.

We need women who will have the guts, the full belly to be women's women.  This is not to say that we shouldn't also be men's women.  I intend continue to love my male friends and embarrass them with TMI on what being a woman is like (my male friends often have to put up with moaning about hormones, periods and smear tests).  But we absolutely need women out there who will state the truth about what it means to be a woman and to champion the women they see around them.

We need women to spot those women who are brilliant and tell them so, every second of every minute of every hour (well...almost), so that those who will stymie their fantastic ability with ill-thought through, stupid comments, will not prevent them from fulfilling their God-given potential.  Because you can bet that for every time you think you are going over the top in telling a woman how brilliant she is, she has the equal and opposite reaction in spade loads.

We need women who will stamp and shout and raise their voice.  Who will not be afraid of being called 'strident' or 'bitter' or be accused of 'having a chip on their shoulder'.  Who will know that these are signs that they are standing in the right place.  We need women who are unafraid of the sisterhood.  Of looking at women and seeing full-blooded, passionate people, and unambiguously seeing them as full human beings who are made in the image of God. And being uninhibited about shouting that from the rooftops.

Is it about Rights?  Well yes - it's about what's right.

I know I am a lucky woman.  I have around me many strong-minded unafraid women and men who have given me the courage to be someone more than I could have been without them.  I see it as my responsibility to do that for other women.

Is it yours?

who will be canute?

i wonder if you can guess which magazine these following excerpts comes from?

'Warts and all, men have played their part in God's story...All [these men] reveal the multifaceted purposes of our God, who chose primarily to make himself and his ways known through men within a historic culture of a patriarchal society...For better or worse, men still hold privileged positions of decision-making authority within areas of global influence such as banking, politics, science and the military forces...the Lord continues to reveal himself through all his people, but still maintains a place for man within his continuous story for earth.'

'When God decided to reveal his story, he began with man: Adam. When he decided to redeem history he chose his Son: the new Adam. No wonder the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, said of Jesus, 'Here is the man!' (John 19:5). Such was the revelation of Jesus. If Jesus is the image of the Father, and he is, and we are the body of Christ, it poses the question: does the world see the divine in men, as Pilate saw the divine in Jesus.'

according to this article, the privileged status of men in society is not something to be judged as institutionalised sin in our world. a world where women are continually privatised as men continue to be at home in the public sphere. rather this is the way that God chooses to reveal himself. Of course God can still use people even when they have been put in a privileged position which might not reflect God's eternal plan for humanity - but this is not the flavour of this particular article, it rather seems to say that God maintains this state of affairs as the place of 'man' in his continuing story ('man' i think means 'males' as opposed to humankind - to be honest the article is a bit confusing throughout in the language, but i think that whenever the writer uses 'man' it is deliberately exclusive because of the subject being discussed)

the first paragraph however is nowhere near as offensive as the second para which builds offense on offense when it completely removes women from the significance of God's creation of human beings and from the particularity of Jesus' humanity.

so, where did this come from?

new wine magazine

*sigh*

a couple of comments - recently i had a chat with a good friend who is a vicar of a large evangelical church in london, he said that if you are not actively standing against sexism and misogyny then it overwhelms. it is not possible to pretend that it is not an issue and simply 'get on with the job'. he was clear that if you don't stand against it then you end up colluding with it by default.

secondly, on speaking to a friend whose husband is training for ordination, i asked her how she felt about women at new wine because she was on the prayer ministry team and she obviously felt very positive about new wine generally. she said that it was a problem but that the reality was that she turned a blind eye to it because she feels at home with the general ethos. she was very frank with me about it, it was just the way it was.

why do i care? probably because i know that new wine is so influential and is so loved by so many (how many other will be prepared to turn a blind eye?) that the particular type of 'gender-blindness' that it purports to have might filter through to those who consider themselves 'new-winers', and what it will really mean is that those who for reasons of integrity simply want to 'get on with the job' will end up colluding with the prevailing sexism instead of being the pioneers that they could be.

the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in

I suppose I should write something about the recent report that was released regarding the 'women in the episcopate' thing and how it's all going to take so long and blah blah blah blah blah.

but to be honest I just, quite frankly, cannot be arsed to engage with this debate for longer than a few sentences.

I want to change the world, and some seem intent on sitting around debating if and when that may be able to happen. sorry but when did we lose the plot?

so here is a quote from the inimitable maggi:

Meantime, the good old Church of England continues in seemingly endless chicken-licken style discussion. In my more bleak moments it makes me think of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Fresh Expressions? A Missional church? All around us there are people hungry and thirsty for the story we have to tell, yet all they can hear is our endless circumventions of an argument that is out of date.

Will we ever see women in the Episcopate? Probably. A while from now. And then another round of hissy fits and arguments.

seriously.

sometimes saying nothing is okay

according to this website, richard turnbull reiterated much of what he said in that video at a conference in the states yesterday.

among other things he is reported to have said that:

'he is not ashamed to admit that he is trying to call the Anglican church back to her Reformed heritage.'

and that he

'sees Wycliffe Hall as a strategic international center for Evangelical orthodoxy.'

at the end of the article it says that 'The basic gist of this ~15 min video [the reform 2006 video] is the same as what he shared yesterday in about 5 minutes at RTS, Orlando.'

seriously, someone needs to tell him to be quiet.

what this tells me is that mr turnbull has not learned one thing from the outcry at his words to reform in 2006. he still sees his appointment as principal at wycliffe as a strategic heist for the CE world.

bearing in mind that the college admitted the unlawful nature of elaine storkey's departure, one would think that a little bit of humility would not go amiss.

we're still waiting for an apology richard.

somehow I doubt that one will be forthcoming.......

bloody enough, okay?

as my blog seems to have been taken up with an inordinate amount of space discussing the gender of God, I have decided to have a little paddy about it. It consists of me gritting my teeth, going gnnnh a bit, oh and stamping around.

there, that's that then.

my my, that feels better. you know sometimes I wonder why I do this to myself, it can't be good for me.

this all might be brought on, of course, due to the fact that I have to do an essay on whether we should continue to name the Trinity as Father, Son and Spirit, in light of the way the masculine language has been used to oppress women.

my basic answer to this is that the Name of God is Father, Son, Spirit and as such we have no right to change it - the caveat to that is that this is a Name, not a denotation of gender. however, in light of the fact that there are those out there who are trying to make God's maleness a valid theological option, I'm having a rethink.

it's not to say that I don't think Father, Son, Spirit is the valid, right and proper name to call God, we have overheard a conversation and, as said before, we have no rights over the Name. but sometimes it is important to shake the foundations in order to remind ourselves and others what those foundations are. biblical theology and christian doctrine have, fairly universally, denied calling God male, but perhaps we need a reminder.

my tutor says that occasionally he uses the phrase, 'Father, she'

I wonder what would happen to the sunday congregation if we did that?

I will not surrender

this book, and others in the same vein, are so damaging for both men and women.

for a brief explanation of what it is about go here.

men and women together image God, in some ways I wish that making that statement alone would be enough to make people sit up and wake up and realise that we cannot go on with this disjunction between men and women.

we image God.

we image God.

God who is Father, Son, Spirit - 3 distinct yet equal Persons who do not overwhelm each other, consume each other, surrender their person to each other.

I have not been made to be a satellite of another person, to be eaten up and made indistinct from that other person so that I have no distinctness of my own.

the irony is that the person who does the 'consuming' loses their own distinctness too - we are only distinct if we live in relationship with those who are distinct from us, if we make them part of us, think like us, hold our opinions, then we are no longer distinct.

the idea that women should surrender their personhood to men is to misunderstand who God is.

I don't believe it!

so, whilst studiously trying to ignore the debate on Penal Substitution, I have found that this is nigh on impossible, especially as my fav blog and forum have ongoing debates going on about it.

but mainly because the release of this book and this article regarding that book have left me with an unavoidable conclusion.

I don't believe it.

I trust and respect Tom Wright to the highest degree, but I find myself in the slightly discomfiting position of disagreeing with him. It brings me out in a cold sweat, to be honest. It's not that I disagree with anything he has said - ha, that would be too easy - no, I just disagree that what he is talking about is penal substitution, even if he is very insistent that it is penal and not just substitutionary atonement that he is affirming.

you see I totally affirm that Christ died in my place, that he bore the consequences of sin for me, that he soaked up all that might consume me when I am purged of all that is in me that militates against me being perfected in Christ. I totally affirm that God must judge evil and sin and eradicate it from all of Creation in order to bring it to its full potential and purpose - to enjoy God and be enjoyed by Him. And that in Christ's flesh all sin has been judged and triumphed over. My individual sin, collective sin and institutional sin. I affirm all of that.

but none of this necessitates a penal view of substitution.

penalty, as I understand it, means the Father exacting a penalty from the Son, because the exacting of that penalty in and of itself brings justice.

now picture Aristotle's scales of justice. On one side is your 'crime' and on the other side is your 'punishment' in order to 'balance' the scales of justice. A thoroughly pagan idea that needs not to be imported into Biblical theology.

now 'justice' as a biblical concept is much more about restoration than retribution. The punishment, or the better translation, chastisement, of Israel was in order to restore that relationship - the end was the transformation and restoration of the people, not the exacting of the penalty

all this leads me on to the conclusion that the above book is, in fact, doing exactly what it says on the tin - rediscovering the glory (bleuch) of penal substitution.

and in this, I totally agree with Tom Wright - the atonement theory defended in this book is unbiblical.

I can feel the heat as they stoke the fire to burn the heretic, as I write this. gulp.

I can't believe I've disagreed with Tom Wright, think I need to go and lie down....oh hang on, the Spanish Inquisition have just turned up....

let's talk about sex...baby...let's talk about you n me

okay, I admit it, the title should probably read 'let's talk about gender...', but it's not nearly as attention grabbing - and I, quite unashamedly, want to grab your attention.

firstly I want to tell you how IRRITATING it is when I have to sing songs that exclude me. Secondly, I want to tell you how DEEPLY IRRITATING it is to spend a significant portion of my worship being IRRITATED.

are we getting the picture?

why am I telling you this? Well it is the chief reason why, this morning at college, most of the chapel were halted in their singing, and then some of us sang loudly and with a broad grin on our faces.

why?

because these words:

'no power of hell no scheme of man, can ever pluck me from his hand'

were wonderfully, beautifully, inspiredly replaced with:

'no power of hell, no human scheme, can ever change Creation's theme'

frankly blimmin' brilliant. That made me smile for a long while - couple that particular change with this one:

'the WORTH of God is satisfied'

and I can finally sing that song all the way through - so, yeah for that.

okay, so some of you now think that I'm being a bit oversensitive about the gendered language thing, so let me give you an illustration of why words are important.

imagine for a moment that the word chosen to represent all of humanity was, for the sake of argument, 'woman'. It makes sense linguistically and stylistically, doesn't it? After all, the word 'woman' includes 'man' - quite literally. It would make sense if we, after a few thousand years of using the word 'Man' to mean 'humankind', now 'swapped' and used 'Woman'. So, read the following text:

'Then God said, "Let us make Woman in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So God created Woman in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

So, what do you think guys? Feeling included? No? What's your problem exactly?

words are important. The fact that we have 'always sung it this way', quite frankly, is not good enough. And this goes for our everyday language too.

Christ defined the whole of humanity and we need to start representing that in our language, because language forms our thinking.

now....where's that inclusive language Bible.........

aww nuts

WARNING: this is a rant

what is it with 'lads mags'?

why is there a sudden proliferation of them on my doorstep? why do I need to be bombarded with the sight of someone with their clothes off as soon as I enter the petrol station?

I have to say that I can't bear it! It really *!$$%£ me off. A little while ago my husband asked me to get him a car magazine whilst I paid for the petrol, but I couldn't find it...why?....because it was on the top shelf - somewhere I'd been told not to look from an early age.

But of course porn isn't on the top shelf anymore is it!? Noooo, it's right at eye level for any toddler to see, except it's not called porn, it's called a 'lads mag' - so that's all right then.

Except it's not all right. It is all wrong. And I just don't get why no-one is bothered.

It bothers me that it was so 'normal' for Chandler in Friends to be into porn and no-one thought it worth challenging him on. It bothers me that some men still view women as objects and it bothers me that some women collude in this objectification.

Don't we get it? Women to be bought and sold isn't a game - it is the way of life for the majority of women in the world and it happens to the most vulnerable of women in a most horrific way.

I've mentioned thetruthisntsexy before, but perhaps it needs mentioning again, perhaps it needs mentioning every day, and every minute of the day until this horror is ended.

I thoroughly recommend that you read Phylis Trible's Texts of Terror and particularly the story of the unnamed concubine - it will fill your heart with dread, and it should. I have written a brief summary of what Trible does with this story here on the articles page.

It ends with this thought echoing our responsibility to all women who have their lives bought and sold:

'Direct your heart to her, take counsel, speak'