The great distorting factor in Christian history which transcends denominational and many other ecclesiastical divisions is that most history has been written by men. And the truth is that men are for the most part not very interested in women, except in certain very specific ways – most of which have been officially out of bounds, because of the general tendency of past Christian historians to be not just men, but celibate clergymen.(Pause) All right, I had to stop for a chuckle.
There is another wild card to take into account in history: the way that something which once seemed so important to everyone can suddenly seem of no significance at all – and then all the worries are rapidly forgotten, as if they had never been. Let me point you to one of the most long-lasting examples: the Christian ban on menstruating women from participation in the sacraments or even from approaching the altar..Oh ick!...and another chuckle. Men!
MacCullough doesn't mention Mary Magdalene. Earlier in the article the writer reminds us that apostle means messenger, and the Magdalene was the messenger at the tomb whom either Jesus (John's Gospel), or the young man in the white robe (Mark's Gospel), or the angel (Matthew's Gospel), or two men in dazzling apparel (Luke's Gospel) sent to the disciples with the good news that Jesus was alive.
Do read the entire article, as it is excellent. In the end, MacCullough advises the male bishops to just get on with the business of ordaining women bishops.
He's been doing an excellent job, hasn't he? He's an Anglican deacon but chose not to proceed to the priesthood because of the Church's stand on gays. Apparently wore clerical dress when he was knighted.
ReplyDeleteIn another twist to this sorry business, MP's on Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee have warned the Church against forwarding a bill to them which will legislate a "lesser status" for female bishops - a reminder that the established church can still be subject to secular oversight.
New ASBO Jesus hits the mark.
Diarmaid has been wonderful voice of reason throughout the nonsense. He's a scholar and knows his stuff.
ReplyDeleteYes, I read the article in the Telegraph.
Colin Coward, who's been at Synod in York, appears somewhat hopeful.
Yes, I saw Colin's facebook post. Sounds as though he may have been overly-pessimistic about Changing Attitude's recent bishops meeting.
DeleteWhat is the HOB of the CofE thinking? Bp. Alan is groaning too. And there are those who want to put the ACC in charge of the Communion? Give me a break!
ReplyDelete"Just get on with it" - yes indeed, and about damn time.
ReplyDeleteThe ACC in charge of the Communion? Lawdy, I hope not.
ReplyDeleteJust do it, bishops!
The problem is that women are dangerous trouble-makers. See the article on priests' wives, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/for-priests-wives-a-word-of-caution.html?_r=1&ref=opinion, written by another woman in Louisiana. I love the quotes by Peter Damian.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I was referring to your last sentence about ordaining women bishops.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ormonde. Or should I say no thanks?
ReplyDelete...in the words of Damian, as “the clerics’ charmers, devil’s choice tidbits, expellers from paradise, virus of minds, sword of soul, wolfbane to drinkers, poison to companions, material of sinning, occasion of death ... the female chambers of the ancient enemy, of hoopoes, of screech owls, of night owls, of she-wolves, of blood suckers.”
Well, so much for women. Methinks Damian's words say more about him than about women.
Russ, that's what I understood you to mean.