First, read this.
Thanks so much to Alert Pigeon, the Rev. Dr. Wil Gafney, for sending this along.
I am out the door right now and will blog later. My first thought is: the timing could not be worse for this image. It would have been perfect in about a year from now, after the Anglican Church had had some time to do theological reflection on sexism in the church without shocking visuals to distract them. Of course it’s all one piece. But it’s far too easy to trivialize this vicar’s look and to take polarizing positions. This is a conversation that could have been eased into.
But these things happen. Rev. Sally Hitchiner has “committed news.” She seems to be handling herself with aplomb. I will say this: when the timing is bad, you want someone like that getting all the hysterical press attention. I hope she has had media training and adequate support.
When another alert pigeon sent me the image of Ms. Hitchiner last week in conjunction with the story on the failed vote to allow women bishops in the Anglican church,I thought she had posed in this Leather Mama look for that story. And I lamented that she looked utterly, absolutely wrong for the conversation.
Now that I know she wasn’t posing (and what a pose! How much more effective it would have been had she not assumed iconic streetwalker stance!) for an article on the vote, I am inclined to read the image differently.
Anyway darlings, discuss.
I’ll try to keep my rage off the interwebs.
Although I’m struck by her image choices and disappointed that she chose to react in that particular direction, I’m more disturbed by a priest wearing Louboutins in worship. Don’t get me wrong, I love luxury fashion, but I also love pastoral sensitivity to the hungry who come through church doors. It seems literally rubbing one’s shoes in the needy’s faces is not quite the “Good News” folks hope for.
[I think these clothes were borrowed as part of the photo shoot. – PB]
The Pope also wears Prada. Red Prada shoes.
The Loubous don’t bother me. I don’t know how much money she has, makes, spends or gives. I don’t know what her hospitality is like or how/if she ministers to the poor. Welcome isn’t about what we wear. I’m not comfortable with stigmatizing shoes but not cars or engagement rings. When I feed the homeless I don’t wear my cope or my Jimmy Choos.
My first reaction after reading the article: the designer clothes don’t bother me (especially when they take pains to mention that her clothes were borrowed), but for love of Pete, someone get that girl an iron. She really needs to have ironed her surplice (the big fluffy white vestment she wears).
I’d love the hot shoes and applaud the colleague who could wear them, but the vestments must be impeccable. Clean and ironed, at the minimum.
From another priest in the Church of England
https://hereticsanon.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/sally-hitchiner-is-a-great-role-model/
I wonder if the fact that this stirred emotions either way is a sign of our irrelevance to society at large. (note, I am not implying that our image isn’t important)
As a follower with some british roots, I think it is important to note the source of this article. The Daily Mail is a quite un-sophisticated rag–perhaps the equivalent of Fox news (?). British readers, help me think of an american counterpart. Not quite “star magazine” but perhaps one that would be on the same shelf as star in the US???? [That’s what I was wondering. And so I have to question the wisdom of the vicar for agreeing to be photographed by them. Why would you intentionally choose to associate yourself with that kind of rag? It’s one thing to be willing to be publicly connected with pop culture, but a tabloid isn’t the outlet to go with. – PB]
The photographer took full editorial advantage of the chancel’s red and the processional cross at the end of the pew behind her in that shot. She is deliberately made (and appears to be cooperating in the attempt) to make her a modern-day S+M, pitch-fork wielding Satan. The red fires of hell flicker behind her, and even lick up behind her scalp.