A woman was recently elected as the first Episcopal presiding bishop and it’s causing quite a ruckus. As reported by MSNBC [1],
The situation has been complicated by Sunday’s election of Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the first Episcopal presiding bishop — the first woman ever to lead an Anglican province. Only two other Anglican provinces — New Zealand and Canada — have female bishops and many Anglicans believe women should not be ordained.
Outside of religions, of course, this sort of explanation–that obtaining a job would be improper because the applicant is a girl–doesn’t fly. In fact, it’s beyond laughable. It’s grotesque.
I have two young daughters. If either of my daughters grows up to be competent at doing X, she should be allowed an opportunity to have a job doing X, right? Whether it’s working as a coal miner, a corporate officer, a computer programmer or a rock musician. I’m not trying to be idealistic. Rather, I’m trying to be empathetic. What kind of crazy world would this be if I were prohibited from doing a job for which I was otherwise qualified simply because of my male gender? What kind of crazy world, indeed!
Outside of religions, opportunities for women have opened up dramatically over the past few decades and it all seems to be a good thing to me. I have to wonder, then, how intelligent people can stand up, unashamed, and announce that a person can’t hold a religious post because–well–to be blunt, that person has a vagina. I can think of very few jobs that would legitimately require a particular type of sex organ. Such a bizarre screening requirement seems especially strange for a religious organization that preaches love and compassion.
Also, to be blunt, I just don’t recall any scripture that specifically provides that God Himself had a real penis. Yes, He is referred to as a He, but it is also widely held that God didn’t have a bodily existence at all (hence the necessity of Jesus, as I understand the logic). No Divine body, therefore no Divine penis. So it doesn’t seem that doing the job of God requires a real-life male body.
Ergo, in my simplistic way of seeing this, it wouldn’t seem that serving a God who is only metaphorically male would require any particular physical sexual equipment.
But somehow, I fear, that I’m missing the point.
Print this post [2]
[3]