I've looked at absurdity from both sides (of the Atlantic) now.

 

Once again the Real World has saved me the trouble of having to come up with my own ideas, this time with not one, but two instances of the denigrating of women.  But while the happenings in Maryland have the makings of a Greek tragedy, these are more like Theater of the Absurd, with some Monty Python’s Flying Circus thrown in.

On January 26, Rev. Libby Lane was consecrated as the first female Bishop of the Church of England.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that on February 2, Rev. Philip North will also be consecrated.  At a consecration, all the attending bishops lay their hands on the candidate.  Rev. North has asked that no bishop who touched Rev. Lane or any bishop who has participated in the ordination of a woman lay hands on him. 

Rev. North does not agree with the ordination of women as bishops because bishops have always been male, going back to St. Peter.  And as St. Paul said in First Timothy 2:11-15:

“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet women shall be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with modesty.”  See more at

 http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/03/St-Paul-Friend-Or-Enemy-Of-   Women.aspx?p=2#KleFjdxzRKpEzVyV.99

(Or maybe it's just because he’s a d**k.  I can say this because I am a churchlady and not clergy.)  This is bad enough, but I guess he is entitled to his opinion.  I’m sure he would say I am entitled to mine.  (You can give this whatever score you want on the Snarkometer.)  However, he also says that a bishop who has participated in an ordination and actually touched the female candidate is “tainted.”   This reminds me of that old nasty playground game, in which someone is said to have “cooties” and everyone goes “Yuck” and runs away from him or her.

The Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, Rev. North’s boss when he becomes a bishop, has declared that

“[because] those who are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests continue to be within the spectrum of teaching and tradition of the Anglican Communion, the Church of England remains committed to enabling them to flourish within its life and structures.” - See more at

http://wwew.archbishopofyork.org/articles.php/3204/forthcoming-consecrations#sthash.DBX6PkTN.dpu

The Archbishop, who has ordained women and is therefore “tainted” will not be laying hands on Rev. North.  He is asking the other “tainted” bishops to join him in “exercis[ing ] gracious restraint” and let two handpicked “clean” bishops  perform the laying on of hands. 

So the absurdity, instead of rolling downhill, is leaping up.

There’s nothing I can do about it.  Rev. Lane and women bishops and women priests don’t need me to defend them.  But by pointing this out, maybe I am doing something.  Oh, and I can pray.  (Sorry, God, I forgot that for a minute.)

And here in the States, absurdity is alive and well.  Various evangelical churches are sponsoring Purity Balls in which pre-teen and teen girls promise not to have sex before they are married.  They also promise not to kiss, hold hands, or date.  (I don’t know how they will ever find anyone to marry at that rate, but that’s their problem and their parents.’)  That is, with any male but their fathers.

So the girls will not be able to attend their proms, but they get a chance to wear beautiful gowns and have their hair and nails done, which is really the point of proms anyway.  Their escorts are their fathers.

A common reaction to this seems to be that it is “creepy.”  And anger that is taking away the girls’ humanity.  They are now the exclusive “property” of their fathers and have signed away their right to decide what to do with their own bodies.  By the way, there doesn’t seem to be a Purity Balls for boys.  Maybe they don’t need them if the girls are holding up their end of the bargain.

Now, I have nothing against waiting until you are married or at least until you graduate.  Who has time for a serious love life in high school, what with sports, part time jobs, homework, shopping, texting and hanging out with your friends, and everything else?  (I always told my daughters that it wouldn’t be problem if they got pregnant, because I would kill them.  Just kidding.)  But . . .  But . . .

As I write this, I am starting to see that this whole situation is not just about the degrading or objectification of girls and women.  Thinking about this we can be challenged about our feelings about parental control (which is not always a bad thing) and sexuality.  Okay, I am being challenged.  As parents, we only want what is best for our children.  Sometimes they need to be saved from themselves.  But what is the best way to do that?  And what would Mary and Joseph do?

As I’ve said before, I don’t have answers.  But I do have questions.  What do you think?