Although the Anglican church is largely liberal, especially in Australia, there are still divisions over the issue of female priests. While the Anglican Synod in Australia voted ten years ago to admit women priests, the Sydney Diocese has resisted. Women who have been ordained as priests in other dioceses, are demoted to Deacon in Sydney (see background article 1, below).
At the end of this post I will provide two articles for background information. My purpose is not to discuss the pros and cons of female priests, so much as to dissect a third article - an opinion piece from one Narelle Jarrett:
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/19/1037697663856.html" target="_blank">Anglican women follow a greater power</a>
This article, and the general point of view it represents, fascinates me - not so much because of the strangely (from a modern, non-fundamentalist church) ultra-conservative views it expresses, but because of the interesting rationalisation it presents in the place of argument - in particular the notion that preventing women from assuming positions of leadership in the church is in some way a "radical" and "challenging" position.
This is something we have seen before, beginning perhaps with the guitar-toting nuns of the 70s. "We're cool, we're radical, we challenge the conventional way of life" ?! It tries to present a lifestyle based on the rules laid down in an ancient book of myths, as "radical and challenging". It's quite bizarre, I find it interesting, and I'd like to dissect it. Let's take a look.
Quote:
|
Far from being a patriarchal vision, the Bible presents a radical view of gender relations - and therefore female ministry in the church - that challenges the vacuous political correctness prevailing today.
|
Or might it be that modern, enlightened perspectives have challenged the ancient worldview presented in the Bible - and won?
The assertion that the Bible, which clearly describes both a religion and a society in which men lead/rule and women follow, is not "patriarchal" in its outlook, is absurdly disingenuous; the presentation of this worldview as "a radical view of gender relations" is rationalisation in the extreme.
Quote:
|
Belief in God is radical - it runs against the general spiritual apathy of the community.
|
It is convenient for Ms Jarrett to describe the ever-declining attendance at her church (and others) as "spiritual apathy", rather then to recognise the unpalatable truth that her church is increasingly out of touch with the community it purports to serve.
And of course the notion that "belief in God is radical" and runs against some dominant community feeling, is patently ridiculous. You want "radical", Narelle - try Atheism or Buddhism. That'll test your radical credentials!
Quote:
|
The gospel of Christ turns our perception of power in human relations upside down. Forgiveness is at the centre of Christianity. Loving our enemies and doing good to those who hate us is positively revolutionary.
|
This just "if it weren't for Jesus we'd all be killing each other because we're inherently evil" in a softer (more deceptive) guise.
Quote:
|
Christ calls us to open our homes and lives to those in need.
|
He also calls on us to cut ourselves off from family members who do not share our religious beliefs.
Quote:
|
This is why Christian churches set up welfare organisations that confront our self-centredness and call on us to act for others.
|
"We're all inherently selfish and inconsiderate unless we follow Jesus."
Quote:
|
But most radical of all for our post-feminist society is the message for women. Women do not have to have the roles that society places value on or recognises as powerful to be significant people.
|
Ms Jarrett's definition of a "post-feminist society" seems to be one in which we've got over all those silly notions of equality. I think it's more likely to be one in which, if the battles for equality have not yet all been won, then at least equality is recognised as a desirable goal by more than just the radical feminists. (Including, for example, my conservative, Anglican ex-in-laws, who embraced in their church one of the first female priests in Australia).
And again we have more pseudo-radicalism - apparently the role of priest is a role that "society places value on or recognises as powerful". I thought it was the church that did that - both implicitly and explicitly.
Quote:
|
As the Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi: "Your attitude should be the same as Christ Jesus: who being in the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant." This biblical passage challenges the view that a person has to be ordained to be an authentic Christian minister.
|
Actually, it looks more to me like grounds for breaking down the entire church hierarchy, male priests and bishops included. But selective and self-serving interpretation of scripture is nothing new, is it?
Quote:
|
Yet Christ calls me not to be part of some "power structure" but rather to be a servant of His gospel and His people.
|
Which is pretty much same call he made to your male colleagues, n'est-ce pas? And yet they have defined a very specific (leadership, seniority) role for themselves which is not open to you.
Quote:
|
I see myself ultimately as a Bible teacher and an evangelist. For any person, whether male or female, this is a radical role.
|
Yeah, you're right out there on the edge, sister.
Quote:
|
The Anglican Church in Sydney is embarking on a mission to hold the truth of Jesus.
|
Good. I may expect the Anglican Church in Sydney to start dismantling its hierarchy (male and female) immediately, then? Or is the "truth of Jesus" just the bit about men leading and women being submissive?
Aaah, I love it when ultra-conservative biblical fundamentalists try and portray themselves as "radical and challenging".
Background 1.
<a href="http://old.smh.com.au/news/0112/24/national/national10.html" target="_blank">Act of faith as priest goes where women are wanted</a>
Quote:
In 1992, Ms Pain became one of the first women ordained by the Anglican Church of Australia. The landmark event took place amid much controversy in South Australia, shortly after General Synod voted to proceed with the ordination of female priests.
But the Sydney Diocese has steadfastly resisted the concept of women's headship within the church. So when Ms Pain arrived in Sydney in 1998, after a five-year stint at Adelaide's Church of Emmanuel Wayville, she was automatically demoted to the rank of deacon.
The priestly functions of absolution, blessing and consecration were placed beyond her reach.
When Ms Pain leaves the Sydney Diocese early next year, however, such responsibilities will be restored. By February she will be addressing her own congregation from a pulpit in the neighbouring Diocese of Bathurst, which fully recognises female priests. Ms Pain will take up the senior position of rector of St John's Anglican Church, in her birthplace of Cowra.
"I always knew I wouldn't be here forever," she says. "But I do believe that by denying women access to the priesthood, the church is missing out on some of wholeness of Christianity."
The Sydney Diocese's ban on women priests stems from a biblical interpretation fashioning men as
the undisputed heads of the church and family.
|
Background 2.
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/20/1037697735487.html" target="_blank">Ten years down the track to a better place for Anglican women</a>
Quote:
Ten years ago today, the Anglican Church of Australia decided to admit women priests. It had taken 20 years of agonisingly bitter debate, punctuated by court challenges and threats of schism, to reach the final vote, when the move passed by the barest of margins...
In Melbourne, plans are well in hand for a full-scale celebration of the 10th anniversary of the first ordination of women as priests. A service in St Paul's Cathedral on December 14 will be attended by most of the 68 women priests in Melbourne, with the preacher a woman bishop from New Zealand.
In Sydney, by ironic coincidence, the Archbishop has just presided over a vastly different event in St Andrew's Cathedral. He has commissioned a team of six women ministers - not priests - for what can only be described as a subservient, discriminatory role.
At least two of the six women commissioned belong to Equal but Different, an organisation originally established to counter the highly effective lobbying of the Movement for the Ordination of Women during the ordination debate.
"Equal but Different" says it all: women, the organisation maintains, are equal to men in their status before God, but different in how they are allowed to function in the church and in the home.
|
[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>
11-20-2002, 10:25 PM
Anglican Church Patriarchy is "Radical" and 'challenges convention' ?!
