Katharine Jefferts Schori was elected by her fellow bishops at the church's General Convention, becoming the first woman to lead a province of the Anglican Communion.

She may well be the first female head of a major religious organisation anywhere in the world, though I can't be sure, since I haven't been keeping score.

As head of the US Episcopal Church, Schori would be the equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Church of England. That's how senior she is.

The Episcopal Church is not among the largest churches in the US, however. It has about 2.3 million members, putting it at about tenth place in terms of membership. The Roman Catholic Church is by far the largest, with some 67 million adherents in America. The Southern Baptists are next, with about 16.4 million, followed by the United Methodist Church, with 8.2 million.

Nonetheless, 2.3 million members is quite substantial.

Schori's election, however, opens a can of worms. One leading traditionalist, the Bishop of Fort Worth, the Rt Rev Jack Iker, said "She will be the only woman among 38 primates and the majority of them do not even recognise women bishops. This is going to be very difficult for the Archbishop of Canterbury."

Not just bishops. Many churches won't even accept women priests.

The question of whether women could be permitted to be clergy became a major issue in the 1970s and 1980s. While the first woman priest (I am informed by a comment by Lee Tuck Leong in the Comments section) was ordained in Hong Kong in 1949, more women were ordained in America from 1974 on. [1].

Barbara Harris

Over the following 2 decades, more churches ordained women while many other churches continued to oppose the move. When in 1989, the Anglican Church of New Zealand consecrated Penny Jamieson as the Bishop of Dunedin, and later in the same year, the American church elected Barbara Harris, an African-American woman, as the Bishop of Massachusetts, there was a sense of crisis at Lambeth.

Eventually, the issue was papered over by agreeing to disagree. Thus today, each Anglican church sets its own policy regarding female ordination, though the question of cross-recognition has still not been resolved. Will other archbishops recognise the position of Katharine Schori, for instance?

In an age when few can see any reason why women should be barred from the highest positions in business, politics and academia simply on account of gender, it comes as a bit of a shock to be reminded that it is still such a contentious issue in religion.

Can anyone argue that women are unable to match men in spirituality, wisdom or organisational skills?

Yet if we look around, not just at Christian churches, but at Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and any other religion, we find that positions of authority are almost always filled by men.

Entire bodies of doctrine are woven to justify this state of affairs, but one wonders how much spirituality there is in any of them. Or are they merely defences for male privilege under the guise of faith?

I was reminded of the way religion is used to sanction male privilege by a controversy that broke out in Malaysia earlier this month. A lecturer in the Academy of Islamic Studies in Universiti Malaya, Mahmud Zuhdi Abdul Majid, proposed legalising Nikah Misyar (temporary marriage) in order to "solve" the problem of the many unmarried Muslim women in the country.

As I understand it, Nikah Misyar is a practice whereby a man marries a woman for a delimited time. The details may vary from place to place, but generally a Nikah Misyar is characterised by a contract of marriage, usually with payment to the bride's family, and an understanding that there will be divorce at some time in the future.

Unlike the more usual marriages, it does not come with any obligation of the husband to support the wife financially.

It sounds outrageous, especially when the "problem" in Malaysia is really one where educated women would rather remain single than be married to unattractive men -- a situation found the world over. To "solve" this problem, Mahmud Zuhdi proposed a solution from the Middle Ages.

Misyar marriage has been practiced in Saudi Arabia and Egypt for many years. It was legalized in Saudi Arabia by a fatwa issued by Sheikh Abdul 'Azeez ibn Abdullaah ibn Baaz and was officially legalized in Egypt by the Egyptian Sunni Imam Sheikh Muhammad Sayid Tantawy in 1999. The Mufti of Egypt is a staunch defender of Misyar marriage. The practice of Misyar marriage is often different from the original intent for creating this institution. Wealthy Kuwaiti and Saudi men sometimes enter into a Misyar marriage while on vacation. This allows them to have sexual relations with another woman without committing the sin of zina [2]. They travel to poor countries, such as Egypt or Syria, and meet middlemen who arrange a marriage for them. Some men arrange Misyar marriages online. The middleman brings some girls and they pick the one that they like most. These men pay the girl's family some money.

-- All things beautiful 

 
You can imagine how many girls are exploited, often by their own families, for this. How is this different from prostitution [3], you might ask? But that is the point: it isn't. Except that this has religious sanction!

The inescapable question then is: If religious leaders can be so antediluvian and misguided in one area, what other areas are they also out of step with modern reality?

(Addendum: Not just religious leaders apparently. The Vice-president of Indonesia spoke approvingly of it about a week after I uploaded this article. See Addendum 1)

By "modern reality", I don't mean something along the lines of the latest fad in social thinking, I mean intellectual thought and spiritual reflection based on what we now know, that we didn't know before.

The Anglican Communion offers yet another example. Once again, they're in crisis, but not over women. This time, it's about gay bishops and church blessing for same-sex marriages. This time, the crisis is so deep, the Episcopal Church may even be disowned by the other Anglican churches from Africa and Singapore (the Singapore Anglican Church is closely allied with the most homophobic African churches e.g. that of Nigeria and Uganda.)

In the years leading up to the American Civil War, which was fought over the question of slavery, the churches in the Confederate South were generally pro-slavery and anti-emancipation. They even had scripture on their side, for the Bible does speak approvingly of slavery.

What about the churches in the North -- that half of the country, led by President Abraham Lincoln (who was said to be  homosexual, in case you didn't know) that fought for abolition? At first, most sat on the fence, refusing to stake out a public position. They mostly argued that it should be up to each person's private conscience. 

It was only when the war was half-way through that opinion swung over to emancipation. Even then, it had less to do with the right and wrong of slavery but was mostly due to the (to us, strange) religious logic that said, (a) since America was going to be God's intended kingdom on Earth, therefore (b) by definition, God was on their side, and (c) since, by political necessity, their army was fighting against the pro-slavery side, therefore (d) God wanted abolition, so (e) good Christians had better line up behind it. [4]

This is not to discount the valiant efforts of individual Christians, such as William Wilberforce (1759 – 1833) who led the campaign in Britain against slavery. And let's not forget Abraham Lincoln. They had the courage of their convictions, even as they were informed by the deepest of religious faith. But they were often lonely individuals, while the leaders of churches and congregations tended to resist social change until others had won the battle.

Sometimes, not even then. In 1865, the civil war was won and slavery abolished in the United States, the second-last major country to do so [5]. Barely six months later, in 1866, the Vatican issued a statement IN SUPPORT of slavery. The document said, "Slavery itself...is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law." 

Religion goes way beyond the saving of souls. Organised religious groups are persistent participants in social politics, trying to effect their ideas on the proper place for other peoples.

It therefore concerns me considerably when a state, like Singapore, repeatedly brings the guillotine down on any debate about religion, for fear of causing offence. Religion, or especially, social arguments wearing the cloak of religion, should be subject to the same critical debate that any argument would. It would be no more than giving opponents the much-hallowed "right of reply".

Yet every time someone criticises a religious group, our government comes down hard on those who defend opposing, secular values robustly. Lately, they have been using the law to prosecute and are threatening to do so again against a blogger named "Char" who was so incensed by a Christian fanatic, he posted a series of cartoons depicting Jesus Christ to spite him. You'd notice the fanatic is not being investigated.

Some may say, debate can still proceed, but don't cause offence. Yet, where is the line that distinguishes offence from no offence? Who determines when it has been crossed? Isn't it entirely subjective to the religious side?

Others may say, debate in words, but don't use cartoons. This is a false dichotomy. They are different ways of delivering an idea.

On the other hand, I think it is unnecessary, counter-productive even, to aim one's argument (or cartoon) at founder figures such as the Prophet Muhammad, the Buddha or Jesus Christ. Firstly, these figures are not the source of the problem. It's the power holders in religious establishments who are. So I'd say, if one wants to draw cartoons, you'd be more accurate depicting mad mullahs and hide-bound bishops (all male, naturally). Secondly, depicting the Prophet or Jesus Christ antagonises some other Muslims or Christians who may well be on your side.

After all, it was the Christian Americans in the Episcopal Church who very democratically elected Gene Robinson and Katharine Schori.

© Yawning Bread