Women Walking on Water

Argus title : Women still held back by attitudes

Last Sunday at Brighton’s St Peter’s Church, Deacon Julie Newson told a gag during her sermon. It went like this.

A parish needed a vicar and voted, after due thought and prayer, to invite a woman to take the position. Most of the parish supported this, but there were some, including a male churchwarden, who did not. Almost all the objectors bent to the will of the majority, but one or two – led by the church warden – did all they could to make life difficult for the new vicar.

The parish had an active social life and one of its most popular events, especially with the male parishioners, was a fishing competition. The previous male vicar had been a keen angler and so there was a lot of pressure on the new incumbent to attend. The Churchwarden thought his chance had come to make a fool of the woman vicar, whom he assumed would chicken out of the event. He was wrong. On the day of the competition there she was by the lake, the only woman among several men.

The parishioners boated out to the middle of the lake only to find that they had left the fishing tackle on the bank. They turned to row back, but the Vicar stopped them “Don’t worry” she said “I’ll get it.” With that she stepped out of the boat, walked across the water and fetched the tackle from the bank.

As she strolled back across the lake to the astonished parishioners, the churchwarden was heard to sneer “Isn’t that typical…she can’t even swim.”

This is a good story at several levels – and very apposite considering the ongoing furore in the Anglican communion about the ordination of women bishops. It gently reminds the church that women are as capable as men of spiritual greatness. It also suggests that some church leaders, obsessed by tradition and authority, might ignore or condemn Christ’s miracles if confronted by them.

The story reminded us that women in work situations – particularly in traditionally male roles – often can’t win. Whether they aspire to be carpenters, city traders, plumbers or priests, they frequently need to be better than men to train at all, often have difficulty finding suitable employment and once in work may be passed over for promotion.

As we have seen of recent weeks, mothers have an even more difficult time of it. They are expected to be able to work effectively within the British culture of long hours and overtime and at the same time undertake the bulk of the housework and child care. Despite the continuing shockingly high incidence of domestic violence towards women and the fact that many men provide little domestic support in the home, it is still women who tend to be blamed for the breakdown of the family and subsequent social dislocation.

A recent report by academics at Cambridge University revealed that in the UK both women and men are becoming more likely to believe the family will suffer if a woman works full-time. The conclusion was based on analysis of social attitude surveys over the past 30 years. In 1994, 51% of women in Britain and 52% of men said they believed family life would not suffer if a woman worked, but by 2002 these percentages had fallen to 46% of women and 42% of men. There was also a decline in the number of people thinking the best way for a woman to be independent is to have a job.

Professor Jacqueline Scott who led the research said: “It is conceivable that opinions are shifting as the shine of the ’super-mum’ syndrome wears off, and the idea of women juggling high-powered careers while also baking cookies and reading bedtime stories is increasingly seen to be unrealisable by ordinary mortals.”

Recent media coverage of the report has tended to focus on the notion that support for gender equality is declining. However, other aspects of the research suggest a less bleak picture. For example, the research reveals that far fewer people now believe the proposition “it is the husband’s job to earn income and the wife’s to look after the children”. In 1987, 71.7% of British men and 63% of women agreed with this statement, but by 2002 the proportion had fallen to 41.1% of men and 31.1% of women.

Kat Banyard, campaigns officer for the Fawcett Society said: “Women still shoulder the bulk of caring and housework at home. The long working hours culture and lack of flexible working means women are presented with impossible choices – forced to choose between caring for a family at home or maximising their career opportunities…”

Mary MacLeod, chief executive of the Family and Parenting Institute, commented: “Many mothers tell us that in the first year of a baby’s life they want to stay at home, but often feel they have to return to work too early because of financial constraints. We need to do more to help mothers and fathers by increasing well-paid parental leave and changing how it can be shared between them.”

Scott said women should not conclude that “the game is up” on combining career and family life, stressing that there was not yet a level playing field for women and men. She said “We are still educating to confirm a gender role division that people thought was eradicated 25 years ago,” adding: ” We have had a string of economic measures to get women into the workforce without a social drive to address the problems that may result.”

Since Labour came to power in 1997 the government has taken effective steps to improve maternity and childcare provision and expand women’s capacity to work. However, despite pouring many millions of pounds into education, it has failed abysmally to challenge traditional attitudes about gender roles in the home or to provide effective training in schools on domestic skills and childcare.

In a similar fashion, the government has improved services to victims of domestic violence, but has done little to challenge the sexism and cultural assumptions which create and underpin abuse. All this may go some way to explain apparently contradictory attitudes.

Labour’s male leaders have been so fearful of tabloid accusations of “political correctness” – and of offending so called “white van man” – that they have created cultural confusion on a grand scale – something that Harriet Harman, Labour’s new deputy leader, is struggling to counter.

It is ironic that the only prominent male politicians who now seem confident to challenge male attitudes are conservatives, such as MP Michael Gove, who recently criticised attitudes to women expressed in “lads mags”.

Attitudinal shift is never easy, but there must be some hope when even the Church of England is making changes. There seems no doubt that there will eventually be women bishops in the church and it doesn’t end there. At the recent Lambeth Conference bishops and their wives (and husbands) spent a whole day discussing the issue of rape and domestic violence. According to a report in the Church Times, the events of the day left several men in tears.

Dr Maria Akrofi, wife of the Bishop of Accra, spoke of the need to address widespread rape and hidden domestic violence. She described the worst form of such violence as “spiritual” because she said “if it happens in the church, and your husband happens to be the pastor or the bishop, you don’t have anywhere else to go” adding “You sit there and hide your brokenness.”

Dr Akrofi spoke of the need for a change in attitudes towards children, saying “In Africa, the girls are kept under lock and key and the boys play football and fool around as they want to. Who’s taught these children to do that?” …“If you want to change the environment, it’s no good doing it when he’s become a bishop. Change it at the level of parenting.”

As the Labour government sinks beneath the waves – and it will take a miracle to save it – my spirits are lifted by Dr Akrofi. She seems to signal a stronger church, one prepared to confront the misogyny which for centuries has distorted and corrupted it.

Deacon Julie take note. The Anglican communion may not yet be ready to walk on water – but it seems at last that it is beginning to swim.

Salt of the Earth

Argus title : Seasoned pair live to serve

Writing this column is always a privilege, sometimes good fun and on occasion an opportunity for pure self-indulgence. One of the best aspects of it is that it gives me the chance occasionally to write about people whose stories are not usually found in newspapers.

A letter to the Times newspaper recently set out the rather snobbish definition of a “lady” as one whose name is printed in the newspaper just three times in her life, at birth, marriage and death. This elitist definition of a woman of the upper classes, blithely ignores the fact that most people in this country never make it to the newspapers at all.

June and George Austen are no exception. June turned 65 last Saturday, but there was no bidding war between Hello and OK as to which magazine should photograph her party. June spent her special night out watching Sleeping Beauty on Ice at the Theatre Royal with her family. After that, it was fish and chips at Bardsley’s and a walk along the seafront.

June tells me she did make it into the Argus once when, at the age of 13, she won a prize in a “window-spotting” competition. Apart from that, she and George have lived their lives well away from publicity.

I first caught sight of them two years ago when I started attending St Peter’s Church. I learned that they had been servers there for years, assisting a succession of priests during services. I later discovered that George had served for over 50 years and June for almost 40.

These were the days before the nave was closed off, so I was able to sit right at the back. I’d watch them in the distance, robed in white cassocks tending the altar, carrying the great brass cross or candles when the Gospel was read, laying out the order of service for the priest.

At that time I was in awe of them, thinking they knew all there was to know about the church. Later I came to learn they were two of the most unassuming people anyone could wish to meet.

I enjoyed watching them, working together quietly at the altar, anticipating each other’s every move. Later, I’d see them walking out together, looking remarkably youthful and often spectacularly dressed – with June in short skirts and both in bright colours. I noticed they tended to move in unison. It was only much later I learned that they are keen ballroom dancers.

I still smile to see them, laughing and gently squabbling – obviously delighting in each other’s company. At times they seem almost magical. More than once I have sat in church imagining them as the artist Marc Chagall might have painted them, taking off and flying round the interior of St Peter’s Church in their white cassocks, heading off up into the rafters and then swooping past the stain glass windows for the pure mischief and joy of it.

George’s parents were Londoners. When the war came, they moved to Brighton where in 1941 he was born. He can remember the guns being fired from the seafront – and D Day, when military vehicles packed the area outside the family’s flat in Sillwood Place. His father was an air raid warden.

He was very close to his mother whom he remembers as immensely kind and a member of Max Miller’s wife’s knitting circle. It is the stuff of family legend that the famous “cheeky chappie” spoke to him when he was a babe in his pram.

George’s father had no religious faith, losing it after the devastating flu epidemic which followed the First World war and resulted in millions of deaths worldwide. George’s mother however was deeply religious and introduced George to St Peter’s Church, where aged 14 he became a server. While she served in various guilds and the mother’s Union, he played badminton and made friends in the church’s youth club.

George’s grandmother died of cancer when his father was only 18. He later told George that his father would not pay for a taxi to take his mother to hospital and so she travelled by bus. George expressed no bitterness towards his grandfather. However, his neglect of his grandmother may be one reason why George decided that whoever his wife might be, he wanted to “spoil” her and “give her things”. June recalls that in the early days George would give her small presents every week – usually a carefully chosen bangle or another piece of jewellery.

Like so many Brighton couples, George and June met at the old Regent Ballroom, which used to stand at the top of North Street on the site now occupied by Boots. June was 18 and George was 20 when they were introduced by George’s friend Freddie. “She looked lovely” George told me “A real cracker”. They went out for 11 days running. George mused “She wouldn’t let me kiss her that first night”. They married at St Peter’s Church 3 years later and have two children and 4 grandchildren.

George carried on as a server at St Peter’s and June joined him in 1970 when women were finally permitted to serve. They have been actively involved in the campaign to save St Peter’s Church from redundancy. As June says “They are taking all our happy life. They’ve taken the Regent Ballroom where we met, the West Pier where we used to walk and now they’re trying to take our beloved church.” She adds “We built our lives around that church. So many people have.”

June was born in Brighton and lived in Goldstone Villas in Hove. She had a very difficult childhood, not least because her mother was often in poor health and needed her to stay at home. As a result June’s education was disrupted. She loved drawing and was very good at it, but there were no opportunities to develop her skills. Like George – and so many others of her generation – she went to work at an early age.

Most of June’s employment has been as a shop assistant, often selling shoes. She has worked for the same company since 1972, and is now based at Debenham’s in Churchill Square, selling ladies fashions. A few years ago, she began piano lessons, which she loves.

Supervisor Cathy Panther described June as “very good with the public, kind and patient”. Her colleague Jackie Stocken said “June’s a lovely person, always very positive and happy. She has one of the kindest hearts. If she has problems she comes up smiling. There’s such a close affinity between her and her husband I think it helps.”

Certainly, their married life wasn’t always easy. George did factory work and was twice made redundant. Eventually, in 1991, he began work for the Brighton& Hove’s City College, first as a caretaker and then as the “post man”. It is a job he loves, because it allows him to meet people.

Phil Frier, the Principal of City College, describes George as “a key member of the City College community.” He comments on his “cheerful smile” and adds “He knows everybody and is a brilliant example to us of someone who is always positive about life. He always has a different story to tell us every day!”

George refuses to let things get him down. Even a diagnosis of prostate cancer was not enough to defeat him. City College’s Facilities Operations Manager Tony Toynbee commented:

” George has soldiered on through a recent bout of illness and other difficulties such as the closure of the College’s local Post Office and still managed to remain a very positive and focussed person.” He added “He can also be fastidious and has been known to reject five post trolleys before he found the one best suited to his deliveries – he made the right choice though as it has served him well ever since.”

The choices they make are important to George and June. Jackie Stocken said of June “Once she makes up her mind to something she gives it 100%.”. She could just as easily have said this about George. Every day of their lives, George and June renew their commitment to each other, their work, their church and their community. And they do it without fuss, pretension or pride.

The “salt of the earth” is how Jesus referred to his followers, none of whom had much power or wealth. It is an overworked phrase, but one that suits this loyal and faithful couple.

They are two of the best.

Gene Robinson

Argus title : Why this openly gay bishop is a hero to me

As a child I had many heroes. I admired people like Robin Hood and Joan of Arc and Oliver Cromwell. I liked the idea that Robin took from the rich and gave to the poor.

My battered children’s history book had an illustration of the young Oliver Cromwell refusing to kiss the hand of the boy prince who later became Charles 1. I don’t know if the incident ever happened, but I thought it was pretty impressive. Best of all was Joan of Arc who spoke to angels, rejected housework, dressed up as a man and led an army to victory.

One of the hardest aspects of growing up was losing the capacity for innocent hero worship – though some fine souls survived my increasing scepticism about the motivation of leaders. I continue to admire reformers like Florence Nightingale, Josephine Butler and Martin Luther King. Archbishop Tutu remains a definite hero and has featured in this column.

Another hero is Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, best known for being the first bishop of the Anglican tradition to be openly gay and non-celibate.
Nothing has come easily to Robinson. His parents were poor tenant farmers, in rural Kentucky. As a baby he was temporarily paralyzed and so seriously ill that the doctor was certain he would not survive.
Robinson had a very religious upbringing within a small strict non-conformist Christian church. It’s difficult to imagine a more restrictive and difficult environment for a young man who was beginning to question his own sexuality.
He was a bright student, and though he might have been better off at a more liberal university, won a full scholarship to the University of the South in Tennessee, and so attended there.
He discovered the Episcopal Church and very soon began to consider the ordained ministry. As he puts it “The Episcopal Church got a hold on me”. He graduated in 1969 then studied at the General Theological Seminary in New York City.
While serving as a Chaplain at Vermont University he met a young woman whom he grew to love and to whom he later proposed. Robinson was honest about his sexual confusion and at one point they considered breaking their engagement. However, they proceeded with their marriage in 1972 and he was ordained a year later.
The couple had 2 daughters in 1977 and 1981, but some time after that, during the early to mid 80s they began to realise that Robinson’s sexuality was an insoluable impediment to their marriage. They agreed to divorce, though both continued to care for their daughters, to whom they are devoted.
In 1987 Robinson met his current partner Mark Andrews and has lived faithfully with him ever since. Andrews helped care for Robinson’s daughters.
Robinson and his former wife remained on terms of affection and respect and later, when he was consecrated as Bishop, his former wife and 2 daughters were there in the front of the cathedral, smiling broadly and supporting him in the most public way possible.
Despite the fact that he had been democratically elected bishop in 2003 – unlike bishops in England who are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister – theologically conservative US Episcopalians aligned themselves with conservative bishops throughout the world to try to dislodge him.
In the same year Jeffrey John, a Gay priest in a longstanding reportedly celibate relationship, was nominated Bishop of Reading. The furore that followed was so intense that Archbishop Rowan Williams, although known to have liberal views on this matter, urged him to stand down. Dutifully John complied, but it did little good. Conservative elements within the church – already battle-hardened by opposition to women priests – had found a new issue around which to organise. They’d also scented blood.
Since that time the situation for openly gay people in the church has been even more difficult than before. People seeking ordination are now actively questioned about their sexuality. Some are prepared to lie, but many of the best of them are not. I personally know of one woman who believes she has a vocation and I’m sure would make a good priest. However, she’s unable to put herself forward for training because she’s unwilling to lie.
In a recent interview with the Church Times, Bishop Robinson said: “I’ve met, what, probably 300 gay, partnered clergy here in the Church of England, and I could tell you stories that would make you weep about what life is like for them, and the fear with which they live: the difficulty in having their bishop come to dinner at their home, with their partner, have a lovely time, and the bishop be fully affirming of them — and to have the bishop say: “You know, if this ever becomes public, I’m your worst nightmare. I will see to it that you are punished.” Now that does something not just to the bishop and to the couple; that does something to the Church.”

Some argue that Gay priests should quietly get on with their ministry, but Robinson says:
“The degree of openness with which one lives one’s life is a very personal choice…..The question for any gay or lesbian person is: “Is the price that I’m paying for being quiet exceeding the benefit?” When the negative consequences of that secrecy begin to outweigh its rewards, then that’s a dilemma.”

He goes on “What is the cost to the Church of secrecy? And I think this especially true here in the Church of England. What does it say to the Church when a vicar gets into a pulpit and calls the congregation to a life of integrity, when it is so obvious to the congregation that the vicar is himself not able to grasp at that straw of integrity? There’s cost to the people themselves, and there’s a cost to the Church.”

The Lambeth Conference of Bishops is due to take place this July in Canterbury. Regrettably, the Archbishop of Canterbury has given way to pressure from conservative bishops and has failed to issue a full invitation to Bishop Robinson. There has been an outcry from the US church, which asserts that as a duly elected bishop he is entitled to attend as a full participant.

Bishop Robinson says he will attend with the aim of increasing awareness. In June, just one month before the conference takes place, Bishop Robinson and his partner plan to contract a civil partnership with a church blessing. Some have criticised him for the timing, but he says:
“if we’d waited until after Lambeth to announce our intentions, I’d be just as severely criticised for having been disingenuous and secretive about the civil union to assure an invitation to Lambeth. There is no time when our civil union will be acceptable to many in the Anglican Communion. But I will not be irresponsible to the partner and love of my life just to avoid giving offence.”
When questioned about the timing by journalists, Robinson’s usual media-awareness deserted him. He responded unguardedly, though very amusingly: “I’ve always wanted to be a June bride”. He was widely criticised by conservative bishops.
He later commented: “What I should have said was something like this: “Gay and lesbian people grow up with the same hopes that other people do – that they’ll be able to celebrate their love for one another with family and friends gathered around, pledging their support for the faithful, monogamous, lifelong-intentioned, holy vows they’ve just taken. I, too, have always longed for such a day.”
He added ruefully“… it’s reminiscent of the years and years that I had to self-censor everything I said, so as not to give away the fact that I was gay. Gay and lesbian people learn at an early age to filter every single word before uttering it, straining out anything that might indicate who we really are on the inside. I know from my own experience, and from that of countless others, that this is an exercise in self-alienation.”
He said “This may not sound like oppression – it’s not the same as being thrown into prison or burnt at the stake – but it’s one of the silent, painful results of oppression. The result of any oppression is living in fear – fear of discovery, rejection and retribution. It’s what most gay and lesbian people live with every day, all over the world.”
He added poignantly: “It takes a toll on our souls.”
Gene Robinson’s book “In the Eye of the Storm” is published by Canterbury Press.