蜜芽传媒

A few years after I was first ordained a priest I was phoned up by the Bishop of Wolverhampton and asked if I would go to a parish in the Black Country to which the Diocese was finding it hard to recruit a priest. I was much more deferential to ecclesiastical authority back then and immediately agreed. And so a few weeks later the removal van arrived and took us to a large Anglo-Catholic shrine on an outer city council estate just north of Walsall. Amongst the various culture shocks of being in this new place was that all the parishioners called me Father. And my discomfort was only enhanced when the youth group discovered that Father Giles sounded a bit like Farmer Giles 鈥� unfortunately, a name that stuck.

Yesterday, the new Bishop of Gloucester, Rachel Treweek, was installed in the House of Lords. In her writ of summons to this new position she was addressed as the 鈥渞ight reverend father in God鈥� 鈥� which is an overly grand title for anyone, but doubly preposterous for a woman. And so rightly, Bishop Rachel asked for the writ to be amended - rejecting the alternative of 鈥渞ight reverend mother in God鈥� for just plain 鈥渂ishop鈥�. And good for her.

But why this habit of calling priests 鈥渇ather鈥�? For some, it鈥檚 deep in the cultural marrow. But like many church traditions, it鈥檚 not as old as some assume. In the middle ages 鈥渇ather鈥� developed as a term reserved for priests who took confession 鈥� 鈥渇ather confessors鈥�. And the innovation of using it to refer to priests in general only began in Ireland in the first half of the nineteenth century. The early church avoided fancy titles: Christians called each other brother or sister. And Jesus himself, in Matthew鈥檚 gospel specifically insists: 鈥淐all no one on earth your father, you have but one father and he is in heaven.鈥�

The problem, of course, is that calling a priest 鈥榝ather鈥� associates maleness with religious power and authority. And this only serves to cement in the church a form of patriarchy which is unwarranted by the scriptures. For as the Lord Bishop of Gloucester rightly reminds us, the Bible describes God as both male and female, thus disrupting the association of God with any specific gender, and breaking the link between God and male power in particular.

But maybe there is yet another link that needs to be challenged, not just between God and male power but also between God and power itself. For although the almighty is a familiar epithet for the divine, the Christian story reveals the fullness of God in the image of a weak and helpless body hanging on a cross 鈥� that is, an image of complete powerlessness. Which is why - just as I have an issue with women not being bishops - I also have an issue, on principle, with any bishops, male or female, being ex officio in the House of Lords. Of course, I understand that some people believe the establishment of the Church enables the church to speak truth to power at the highest level. And many Bishops do precisely this. But I believe that the original sin of the church is its fondness for secular power. Jesus managed pretty well without it. And so, I think, should we.

Show less