Judith Maltby, the Chaplain of Corpus Christi College in Oxford, has written a piece for the Guardian’s Comment is Free section on their web. In it she unfortunately demonstrates a lack of real engagement with the theological objections of those who oppose women’s ordination and consecration and indeed shows how she simply won’t engage with the reality of what people actually say, instead choosing to judge upon what she believes they mean.
Here’s the text with my comments interspersed:
When I was ordained a deacon in 1992, a few months before the historic vote on women priests, I was like most people shortly to be ordained: overly anxious and overly serious. Added to that I had recently finished my doctorate on an aspect of the English Reformation. This meant, unlike most Anglican ordinands, I had actually read the 39 Articles to which one must assent before being ordained in the Church of England. I had scruples. I told my diocesan bishop that although most of the thirty-nine were fine, one or two were a real problem. Article 37 for example, endorses capital punishment, a position I find incompatible with the Christian gospel – a fact that seems to have been overlooked (or has it?) by those who wish to impose the Articles as a touchstone of orthodoxy and morality on the whole of the Anglican Communion. I received from my bishop just the right response for the occasion: he told me that by ‘assent’, I was saying ‘Yes bishop, those are the 39 Articles’. His pastoral, intelligent and humane response to my somewhat precious scrupling carried me through the day.
For one who has completed a doctorate on the 39 Articles, Maltby shows an extraordinary laxity of approach to the actual text of those Articles. Here is the original text of Article 37 :
The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
Notice the exact wording of that article. "The Laws of the Realm *may* punish men with death…" For those who are familiar with leading worship, we get very used to the difference between "may" and "shall". The "may" here indicates that such a position is not a command upon Christians but rather an understanding that some may come to the conclusion that capital punishment is in certain circumstances justifiable. And yes, Maltby is writing for a secular audience, but note how she doesn’t at any time attempt to justify her position on the subject from Scripture. Rather she uses it as an example of her willful dissemblance at her ordination when asked to assent to and affirm the 39 Articles, a perjury that she seems to implicate the Diocesan bishop as being complicit with.
Imagine folks if I had taken that attitude upon ordination to the first five articles?
The draft legislation to consecrate women as bishops published on Mondayand the supporting documentation makes a great deal of Anglicanism’s gift for holding together diverse, at times, contradictory points of conviction in a wider context of pastoral common sense. Often derided by others for this as the fudge producers extraordinaire of Christianity, we Anglicans tend to make a virtue of it and if it makes us less prone to witch-hunts and the gleeful doctrinal purges of the purity police, I’m all for it. Human beings, let alone God, are rather complicated.
Anglicans disagree about more things than I could live long enough to enumerate: how is Christ present in the Eucharist, if at all; does Baptism make people regenerate or does it anticipate later conversion; what does it actually mean to say that the Bible is the Word of God; is the death of Jesus redemptive because he took punishment which should have been ours or through his death, God shows the profundity of the divine identification and commitment to the human race; is ordination ontological or merely the authorizing an individual to perform a set of ecclesiastical functions ndash; oh and can women, as well as men, be priests and bishops? Yes we disagree about that too as well as not agreeing just what a priest or bishop actually is in the first place. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the things over which Anglicans differ.
I just want to comment at this point that though Maltby seems to lay out here a position that Anglicanism allows itself to be open a number of different theological interpretations, only two paragraphs previously she has presented a position on capital punishment that indicates that in her mind it is *not* acceptable to disagree with the position that capital punishment is ungodly. It appears that less than half way through her essay she is already wrapping herself up in a web of authoritarian confusion.
In the midst of all this merry muddle, what we have never done as a church until the Act of Synod in 1993, is to deal with differing convictions by setting up a class of bishop to give pastoral care to one group based solely on their views on one issue. The draft legislation carries on this idea with its proposal of ‘complementary’ bishops to serve the minority in the church unhappy about women bishops. Not only would these bishops be men, they would have to be men untainted by sacramental association with women clergy – please understand: just being a bloke isn’t good enough, the bloke must be pure. I get angry emails from time to time for describing this as a theology of taint, but I honestly can’t think of a more candid description for this position.
What Maltby neglects to tell her readers at this point however is that that votes in 1993 introduced women priests on the understanding that the doctrinal discernment in this area was not yet complete and that the Church of England, as part of the wider catholic church, was in a period of reception as regards this innovation. That meant that the Act of Synod and accompanying documentation explicitly acknowledged that those who objected to the ordination of women on theological grounds did so (and still do so) with integrity and as fully participating members (and clergy) of the Church. There was therefore absolutely no "theology of taint" intended by the provisions for discenting parishes and furthermore, the Synod understood the necessity for such provision.
And it’s worth pointing out here of course that there are plenty of us opposed to women’s ordination who have no issue with male bishops who have ordained women. We have, after all, read Article 26:
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
On with Maltby:
The point is this: I have a very ‘high’ view of the Eucharist – if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me for surely Eucharistic theology is as important as disputes over ordination. But no. From disagreements over the Eucharist, the Bible, even the theological meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we Anglicans feel no need to haul in a complementary bishop.
Not even in the slightest. The Anglican position on the Eucharist from the Articles can be easily seen:
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
It’s very clear that if you believe in transubstantiation and yet assent to the 39 Articles you are perjuring yourself, pure and simple. In the same way, to take a Zwinglian view (that the elements are only ever bread and wine and do not in any sense becomes tools by which we receive from Christ in the Eucharist) is also proscribed by the first paragraph of the Article. So the Anglican position is actually rather clear – what happens at the Lord’s Table is neither simply a memorial nor the magical transformation of the elements into Christ himself, but some other mystery somewhere between these two rejected heresies. Many priests like myself are more than happy with such a position, and for those who believe that doctrine cannot be expressed in such a manner (the denial of what is not true rather than the explicit affirmation of what is true), then they need to take another read of the Athanasian Creed.
So back to Maltby. It’s very clear that the Anglican Church has settled its mind as to what occurs on the Lord’s Table, but furthermore, it has also decided that no provision needs to be made for those who might afterall believe something slightly different to their Bishop in this regard (for example my Bishop might take a position more akin to Calvin, I one more akin to Cranmer or Hooker). It has however decided that since the final discernment as to whether it is correct to ordain women has not been made, it is perfectly acceptable to make provision in this regard for those who object to the 1993 innovations.
It is therefore simply incorrect for Maltby to argue that "if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me". The Articles show very clearly that on the matter of the economics of the Eucharists there are incorrect interpretations and there are correct interpretations (or to be more precise, there are interpretations that are not incorrect). On the matter of women’s ordination however the Synod has clearly argued that there is no one valid correct interpretation (we are in a period of reception) and that therefore allowance can and should be made for those who object to the innovation.
On to the killer paragraph:
Why is that? One is left with the sad conclusion that the draft legislation and its code of practice isn’t really trying to deal with genuine theological difference – the Church of England has that in abundance – it is trying to deal with women. I don’t blame the hard working members of the drafting group for this – this reflects state of the Church of England. Women are the problem, not a gift, which needs a solution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘complementary’ as ‘completing and perfecting’. What, I wonder, could possibly be ‘incomplete’ about a woman in episcopal orders (answers on a post card, please)? Maude Royden, the first Anglican woman to preach in the Church of England in 1919, sparking enormous controversy at the time (as it still would in Sydney), once remarked ironically ‘I was born a woman and I can’t get over it’. The Church of England, it would appear, bereft of any irony, cannot get over it either.
Maltby’s argument descends to the usual position of those who object to the objectors – that they are afterall just misogynists and the provisions being made for them pander to such prejudice. And really, one cannot fail to see why she should resort to such a response, because she doesn’t use Scripture in her argument and the procedural / ecclesiastical objections she raises are simply incorrect. The only way therefore to argue against those who have genuine theological and ecclesiastical objections to women’s ordination and consecration is to allege that our objections are not afterall theological but stem from prejudice. If we can be portrayed as prejudiced and bigotted against a certain group then it becomes much easier to demonise us and dismiss our arguments, not on the basis of good Bible study or reasoned ecclesiology but simply because our viewpoint is not acceptable in the enlightened 21st Century.
Prejudice is, afterall, a bad thing.
One more thought. Back in 2003, whilst studying at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford in preparation for ordination, I was asked whether I would be prepared to act as a link point to the Christian Union in Corpus Christi college. The idea of the link was that I would be someone with a bit more experience and wisdom (?) than the undergraduates running the college CU, someone to pray with and perhaps run ideas past, not to run the CU for them but someone just to refer to for advice and counsel. As a matter of courtesy I emailed the chaplain of the college and asked whether she would be comfortable with the arrangement. The chaplain responded and quite bluntly refused me any permission to act in any pastoral manner with the undergraduates in question. I offered to meet with her so she could get to know me and perhaps realise that I wasn’t the chapel burning, icon smashing, authority ignoring puritan thug that she seemed to believe I was (I didn’t of course use that language – I suggested a nice cup of tea to get to know each other). She refused. I believe the lady in question is still in position.
Prejudice, as I’ve said before, is a bad thing.
Related Posts :
Tags: Anglican Communion, Assent, Bishops, Capital Punishment, Chaplain, Christian Gospel, Church of England, Consecration, Deacon, Diocesan Bishop, Doctorate, Dominions, English Reformation, Laxity, Majesty, Objections, Ordination, Orthodoxy, Touchstone, Women Priests
January 13th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Peter, you, and any one who objects to the ordination of women to the priesthood (and now the episcopate) completely fail to understand what ministerial priesthood in Christ’s church is. Ministerial Priesthood is about sharing in the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. We are bound into that by virtue of our baptism. The Church makes no distinction between men and women in terms of baptism, and therefore has absolutely no right to make any distinction about ministerial priesthood by virtue of gender. To make such a distinction IS simply to be prejudiced I’m afraid and thank God the C of E had the guts in 1992 to begin to do away with it.
And reception is not about discerning if it was the right thing to do. The C of E was convinced it was the right thing to do and that it was offering a gift to the whole Church by taking this step; the process of reception is simply the process by which the Church receives this gift.
Ohh.. and one more thought. Would it be ok if I, a liberal catholic priest of more than 20 years offered some alternative pastoral oversight to some of the groups in your congregation so that they get alternative views presented to them and thus have some proper understanding of liberal theology?
January 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Dear Peter and Sound,
1. ‘Ministerial priesthood’? Nope, that’s not what a priest (a contraction of ‘presbyter’) is tapping into. He’s not offering sacrifices on behalf of his congregation. Christ has done all that. All Christians share a common priesthood of offering ourselves in Christ’s service (Rom 12:1). This can also be extended to prayer but prayer from a presbyter carries no more clout with God than from any other Christian.
2. Rather some presbyters are set aside particularly to develop a thorough knowledge of the word of God that it may be taught to His people and the watching world (Acts 6).
3. And the chaplain (note, chaplain) of a college is not parallel to a presbyter in a church. Students have not put themselves under the chaplain’s authority as they would have to do in a presbyter in a church. (We no longer live in days of compulsory attendance at college chapel. If we did I would have dropped out part way through my degree!) Thus Peter’s approach was very much a courtesy call.
4. By the way, did you act as a ‘link’ Peter?
Nonconformingly yours,
John Foxe.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Hi John,
Out of courtesy to Maltby I did not pursue that which I had been asked to do. I’m not sure today I would take the same line.
Sound,
I think JF in his point #2 begins to explore the key difference between clergy and laity. We are all called to minister, all part of a royal priesthood, yet some of us are called to particular ministries and particular aspects of that priesthood. Unless you believe that absolutely anybody who has ever been baptised (for example Joe Bloggs who got baptised 30 years ago and had never darkened the door of a church since) should be allowed to do everything in church then your position is not credible.
We’re then left with the position that some tasks require more than simply baptism, that people are specifcally called to them, and if the Bible (or tradition) says that only men are called to certain things, then who am I to argue with God.
As for your last request, by all means apply for the appropriate post next time there’s a vacancy. If the parish want you and the Bishop is happy with you then you have the job!!
January 13th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Peter.. you conveniently ignore the theology of my first point and miss the parallel in the second. Of course there are different ministries. Even priests exercise very different ministries to each other. But the basis of all ministry is a relationship with christ through baptism, not gender. And we don’t make distinctions in baptism. Therefore…..
Anyway..thank goodness the C of E offered this gift to the whole church. We now ordain more women than men. In 20 years time half the C of E episcopate will be female and that can only be good news for the fullness of Christ in the life of the Church.
And I’m not applying for any post. I’m offering my ministry freely….the idea of the link is that I would be someone with a bit more experience and wisdom (?) than the curate running various groups, someone to pray with and perhaps run ideas past, not to run the groups for you but someone just to refer to for advice and counsel. (Does this last sentence ring any bells?)
January 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Sound,
I’m not ignoring your first point, I’m simply pointing out to you that you don’t *actually* mean what you wrote, otherwise you would have absolutely no problem in dragging someone off the street with no church background whatsoever but who had been baptised as a baby to do your Communion. If you accept that you *wouldn’t” do that then the rest of your argument falls apart because you have accepted that not all who are baptised are equal in what they are called to do.
As for your second suggestion, if anybody in my congregation asks me for exactly such a counsel and asks for it from you, I’m more than happy for them to contact you. The souls of those who belong to Corpus Christi College, Oxford Christ Church Ware are not my possessions to keep and control.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Ahh.. Peter, I see you don’t actually read very well. What I mean is exactly what I say. The ministry of all people is related to the ministry of the priesthood of Jesus Christ by virtue of their baptism, not by virtue of their gender.
Clearly anyone who exercises some ministry needs selection, discernment and training to exercise it, but I asssumed you would be bright enough to take that as read….
But the theological point remains; the selection and discernment is because they have a baptism, not because they have a particular set of genitals….
You also miss the point of my second suggestion; I’m offering the counsel regardless of whether you or anybody else wants it, in the same way your ministry was offered to Judith Maltby and members in her pastoral care whether she wanted it or not. I’ve been asked to offer it by a liberal bishop I know. I note you are not jumping up and down to accept it, but managed to reply to John as follows: Out of courtesy to Maltby I did not pursue that which I had been asked to do. I’m not sure today I would take the same line. I feel the same really….I’m worried about the souls of your congregation and want to be sure they get the real good news of the Gospel….
January 13th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Oh..and the bible and tradition are not clear about ordination as we have it in the C of E…BUT the tradition of the C of E is now absolutely clear that we do allow women to be priests, so who are you to differ from the tradition you find yourself in?
January 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
The tradition of the CofE is *not* clear on women priests, unless you are suggesting that the period of reception is now over?
January 13th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
See my earlier point about reception….if you aren’t ready to receive the gift, then that’s fine.. we will wait until you are. But the Archbishop has made it clear the C of E is NOT re-opening any debate about women priests; therefore our tradition is very clear – after considering scripture carefully, and debating the theology of it for about 30 years and concluding there were no theological objections at all, we decided to go ahead.
There *are* churches that don’t open the ministry of priesthood to women if you prefer that option…. but they have an even more peculiar theology of ministry….we didn’t have a Reformation for nothing.
January 14th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Dear Sound,
of course the fallacy in your argument is that even if baptism is the basis for all ministry, it isn’t the sole factor to take into account. It may be necessary, but it isn’t sufficient.
Regards,
The Foxe
January 14th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Dear John Foxe
Thanks for helping along my point. I’ve never said it is the only factor or sufficient on its own. The C of E has quite clear criteria for selection for ministry – but note that not one of them has to do with the type of genitals you have. But baptism is still the basis for all of them. All ministry shares in the minsitry of Jesus Christ. And we *can* share in that (and note I say *can* and not *do*) for one simple reason – we share in Christ through our baptism. Clearly some people don’t bother to exercise their baptismal promises and privileges, and clearly not everyone is called to exercise a particular ministry. But the only reason they can in the first place is because they are baptised, and we make no distinction about baptism based on gender.
The more you and Peter argue the more you look like you think women are less in Christ than men are… maybe you’d feel happier in Rome?
January 14th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Dear Sound,
the CofE may well have other criteria that neglect what scripture says about gender and ministerial functions. That certainly doesn’t lead me to conclude the CofE has got it right nor that women share less in union with Christ than men. But then you seem to be determining the worth of a woman by what she does rather than what she is.
As for the whore of Babylon surely you’ve descended the ecclesiological equivalent of Godwin’s Law?
Apoplectically yours,
Foxe with teeth.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Sound,
I think your failure to respect that the conservative argument about women’s ordination or leadership has nothing to do with them being “less in Christ” but more to do with them being “different in Christ” is telling. I may not agree with Inclusive Church or WATCH, but at least I do them the courtesy of understanding where they are coming from and engaging with what they actually believe, not a caricature or down right dissemblance of their position.
January 14th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Peter, I think you have absolutely NO respect for WATCH or Inclusive Church, and you’ve made that plain in post after post or rude snide remark. You ever refer to the bIshop of Leicester as a ‘muppet’. Is that respectful, do you think? Your post above here, when you say that ”if the Bible (or tradition) says that only men are called to certain things, then who am I to argue with God” makes it plain that you don’t understand at all what the C of E did in 1992. That IS the tradition that you now operate in. Every diocese ordains women to the priesthood. Or haven’t you noticed?
And if you explore my arguments re Baptism carefully, you will see that it is exactly the argument the Archbishop uses. It’s sound theology….
January 14th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Sound,
The Bishop of Leicester *is* a muppet if on live TV he denies one of the 39 Articles and key aspects of the Christian faith. As for Watch and Inclusive Church, I only ever respond to what they actually say and write rather than caricatures of their position.
I think you are glossing over certain aspects of the 1992 vote. It was abundantly clear at the time that the vote to ordain women was not the end of the matter and that passing the Act of Synod we had entered into a period of reception. The fact that every diocese ordains women doesn’t in any way negate that period of reception. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently stated that he didn’t think that as a church we would go back on the 1992 vote. He did not state that that was now official policy. Until Synod decides that the period of reception that it acknowledged being in place is over, then it is not over.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Let’s be absolutely clear what the Archbishop said shall we? I quote from his website:
“From the very beginning of this issue I have been a supporter of the ordination of women and have not doubted the rightness of that decision or the blessings it has brought. It has been a difficult road for the Church and the cost of that decision has been a heavy one and that has been a test.
“I made it clear in the interview with the Catholic Herald – and will continue to do so – that I see no theological justification for any revisiting of this question and indicated in the interview three times that I had no wish to reopen it, whatever technical possibilities might theoretically exist.”
“The presentation of this to mean anything else is wilful misinterpretation. My convictions mean that I feel nothing less than full support for the decision the Church of England made in 1992 and appreciation of the priesthood exercised ”
Looks like ‘policy’ to me….
And on ‘reception’, even the Fif ‘comic’ New Directions had to acknowledge that reception is not just about the C of E deciding whether or not it did the right thing. I quote again:
* Reception is a permanent feature of the life of the Church. As the Spirit-filled Body of Christ, the Church is continually developing its fundamental appropriation of the apostolic faith in order to engage with new knowledge, fresh insights, and changes in the society within which it pursues its mission. Reception is thus related on the one hand to apostolic continuity and on the other to the inculturation of the faith. Reception is not a political device but an ecclesiological reality. The process of the reception of the ordination of women should, therefore, be related to ecclesiological principles, especially those enshrined in the four credal notes or attributes of the Christian Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
* Reception is not the concern of a single church or communion but should be seen in a fully ecumenical context. Reception is a matter for the whole Church, in which gifts and insights, vision and wisdom can be shared. All Christians share in the sensus fidei which shapes the process of reception. While new expressions of the faith are being tested, the interaction of differing, even opposing points of view plays an essential part. The decisions of the Church of England with regard to the ordination of women in a divided universal Church presuppose that an ecumenical process of reception is required. This wider context suggests that not only boldness but restraint may be called for. The ultimate context of reception is the reunion of the Christian Church, which is currently divided on a number of beliefs and practices.
There is, as Rowan has made clear, absolutely no chance that we will re-visit a decision that has already been taken after very clear research and careful debate. There is simply the hope that the whole Church will receive what we have given as a gift….
January 15th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Nope Sound, the Archbishop is fastidious in his use of language so we can see exactly what he does and doesn’t say. He says, “I see no theological justification for any revisiting of this question and indicated in the interview three times that I had no wish to reopen it, whatever technical possibilities might theoretically exist.”
Note the “I”. He is speaking in his personal role as AB, and is deliberately not using the language of “we”. Unless you believe that the AB can simply change an Act of Synod by saying it’s now all different, then you can see that he is raising the theoretical possibility that we could rescind the Act of Synod, but that he personally would not be in favour of doing that. If there is still a possibility to revoke the original Act of Synod then the period of reception is not yet closed.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Sadly Peter you seem to be deluding yourself. The C of E for the last two years has ordained more of us women than men. All the training institutions (even Mirfield) now train women as Priests, and as has been pointed out to you, they are ordained in every diocese. They clearly won’t be any going back. The Archbishop does indeed refer to theoretical possibilities, but makes it clear these debates are not going to be re-opened. And he is not speaking ‘personally’ – he is speaking as Archbishop of Canterbury! I am very glad I am not in your deanery and have found the gracious support of many many male colleagues, with only a tiny number who have your spirit of negativity…. we pray for you.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Estelle,
The issue was whether the period of reception was over. It matters not a bit whether the Archbishop does or doesn’t want to repeal the Act of Synod, the simple fact of the matter is that Synod has not yet declared that the period of reception is over and therefore the period of reception is not over.
As for your slurs of misogyny, I suggest that you contact the three stipended female clergy in our Deanery, one of whom is the Rural Dean, and ask them first what they think of me as a colleague and my attitude and demeanour towards them before you start making such offensive insinuations. If you need their contact details, use the contact page on this site to ask for them.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
I can see from the way you address me here that you are offensive Peter – I don’t need to verify it one way or another ! Don’t make offensive insinuations about the priestly ministry of women please…. and before you ask ‘where’, just read what you have written about Judith Maltby…
The issue is actually about whether or not the C of E could change it’s mind - it clearly can’t – and therefore there is no going back. Reception is not here nor there when there is only tiny theoretical possibility…
January 15th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I have made absolutely NO “offensive insinuations about the priestly ministry of women”. In the article above I have written directly in response to what Maltby wrote and my specific personal experiences with her. I have robustly challenged the content of her piece on the Guardian website and you have a perfect right to respond to any of the points of substance I have made in that challenge. You have chosen not to do so, but rather to simply attack my character. Such ad hominem belittles you.
Furthermore you have insulted me and suggested that my female colleagues in this Deanery would receive no support and only negativity from me. I suggest that if you believe that is so you either:
i) Speak to my female colleagues in my Deanery (I am perfectly willing to give you their contact details – contact me via the contact page) and then report back here what they say about my relationship with them and my support (or lack of it) of their ministry
OR
ii) Apologise in a comment here for insinuating that I am a misogynist.
I am afraid that until you do either of these two things I will not permit any more of your comments on my blog. If you are unwilling to have the courage of your words and actually do one of these two things then the conversation is unfortunately over, but I will simply not have people suggesting I am misogynist without the evidence to support such a claim.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Peter – this does seem to have touched a bit of raw nerve with you.
The irony of your comment re the Archbishop is not lost of course. When conservatives think the Archbishop ought to be speaking out about things, and he doesn’t, they moan that he doesn’t. When he says something quite clearly as the Archbishop, rather than personally as Rowan (as he has done here about women priests) but you don’t happen to agree with him, then you say that only synod can decide things. The Archbishop is of course the president/chair of synod anyway….
re: your Rural dean – as a matter of interest, do you receive communion from her when she presides? From your other female deanery colleagues?
January 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am
The comments in this thread demonstrate why the proposed Code of Practice will be totally useless.
One wonders what other divisive issues the Church will think up next to drive people out.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Sound,
The reason why this touches a raw nerve with me is that I’m “up to here” with people implying that the opposition to women’s ordination and consecration as bishops always boils down to misogyny. It does not and for Estelle or anybody else to suggest that it does is simply insulting. It is a theological issue, not a sociological issue.
There are loads of us who are utterly, utterly in favour of women’s ministry, who recognise the gifts and talents given to them by God, who work happily alongside and constantly affirm our female colleagues, who think that in many cases they are better at doing many things then we are and who lament the utter failure of some parts of the church to do the same. What we are not in favour of is *ordaining* women to be the sacramental locus of the worshipping community because we believe with all integrity that there are profound, important theological reasons why we shouldn’t.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
You side stepped the crunch question about integrity, so I will put it again… as a matter of interest, *do* you receive communion from your Rural Dean when she presides? From your other female deanery colleagues?
We will go on disagreeing about those ‘profound, important theological’ reasons. I (and the Archbishop of Canterbury) believe that there are profound important theological reasons why ordination can’t in any way shape or from be linked to gender.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Sound,
I have absolutely no problem receiving bread and wine from my female colleagues when they have presided in church.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Ok thanks that’s most helpful to know. So you DO recognise that she has a ’sacramental locus’ in the worshipping community – you receive the sacrament from her. And will recognise that the sacraments she celebrates are valid? And clearly you recognise that, as Rural Dean, your woman colleague has a measure of authority within the Deanery and that her authority extends over you? You presumably also sit and listen when she is preaching in the Deanery? I just want to be clear what your own ‘objection’, as a conservative Evangelical, practically invovles, as I do have FiF colleagues who do not receive, and do not recognise the validity of the sacraments our female colleagues celebrate.
January 16th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I’m glad that you’re as good as recognising precise use of language as I am at delivering it!!!
No Sound, I do not recognise the women I work alongside as being a sacramental locus. I do recognise the authority of the Rural Dean over me in those areas that she has jurisdiction. I’m also quite happy to listen to anybody teach the Bible.
To be honest, I really don’t think that making scenes or causing problems on a day to day basis solves anything. I’m more than happy to receive bread and wine from a woman in my Deanery because I wouldn’t want to cause her any embarrassment by my being seen not to receive from her. If I don’t believe that what she is giving me is substantially sacramental and yet at the same time I don’t believe that she has done something idolatrous and that rather she is simply mistaken in what she is doing, then it really doesn’t matter if I do consume it. I don’t have a theological problem with 95% of what my female colleagues do in their working week, and I have no intention of causing a problem for them on those things that I think they shouldn’t be doing, but have no control over.
I hope you will see this as trying to be as reasonable and hospitable as possible.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I actually see it as lacking any integrity at all – but that’s not my problem brother!
January 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Hi Peter,
This is interesting. We’ve seen on this thread some of the responses when people have a different opinion on this stuff (i.e, you are automatically “offensive” or “hurting people”). I’m not sure how reasonable debate can continue when that kind of emotionalism is thrown around all the time.
Sound, it seems to me that you think that those who oppose the ordination of women need to set out to make life difficult for women priests in order to have integrity. Do you want to embarrass or humiliate everyone you disagree with?
Peter again,as I think Sound is right to assume that women priests are here to stay, wouldn’t it be better for the opponents now to focus on thinking about how they can get on as the minority in the CofE? I’m not sure what good talking about reception now does in practical terms.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Matt,
The moment that the same Synod that opened a period of reception in the Church of England closes that same period of reception, I will happily accept is as closed. Until then it is not, despite the desire of whoever (all the way to Archbishop) that it is.
January 18th, 2009 at 12:36 am
Hi Peter, hope you’re doing well.
I’m interested in this discussion, and I wonder if you would clarify one thing for me. I appreciate that there is a deep investment among opponents of women’s ordination in a model of sexual difference which they recognise as biblical. Could you set out, briefly, how you see that model, and precisely why you believe it has a bearing on women’s priestly ministry but not on other forms of women’s service in the church. I know the individual passages of course, but I’d be interested to see how you build a gendered theory of vocation with them. It would also be interesting to hear you reflect on how your other convictions about gender identity are related to this model. If you’ve done this elsewhere, I’m sorry that I’ve missed it – just point me to it. This isn’t quite following the thread, but it’s important for me to understand.
January 18th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Hi Sarah,
Nice to see you here. Do pass on my greetings to Marius.
I think the issue is to do with authority and sacramental practice. There’s plenty of Scripture to indicate that we are all called to some form of ministry. I don’t need to quote specific references on that, we probably agree on that issue, and we also probably agree as to the misogynist ways that women have been prevented from exercising ministry over the years.
The issue is to do with a few specific forms of ministry that Scripture and tradition seem to indicate are reserved for men. The first seems to be “final authority”. Scripture clearly (it seems to me) indicates that the husband / wife model of Christ / Church is a highly important signification. This then seems to be extended by passages such as 1 Tim 2:12. Now of course we can have a deep meaningful discussion over the meaning of anthenteo and I personally think it’s much more to do with authority then it is to all forms of instruction. Equally 1 Cor 14:34 should in my opinion be translated “should not let themselves preach” rather than the more dominating “should not be permitted to speak”. Willing submission is I think a much more Biblical model than implemented coercion!!
Obviously though women do talk to men (and women) about Jesus and do bring people to Christ, so the instruction cannot be against women speaking in church per se or speaking about Jesus per se, so the combination of the ideas of preaching/proclaiming AND authority come together in the idea that men have been called, for reasons of signification, to take upon themselves the ultimate responsibility for proclaiming the truth about Christ, which fits into the Ephesians 5 model of husbands modelling the surrender of Christ for the Church (wife). My wife always says that I have the hard side of the bargain – I have to give up all my desires and possessions for her – all she then has to do is say “yes”.
You can see as well that once you accept that this is to do with signifying Christ’s relationship with the Church then arguments over kephale being head or source don’t really change the nub of the tradtional case.
So the first issue is final authority (and as we finish that let me just say that this is the one of the two that is hardest for me to accept, because throughout my working life I have always preferred having female bosses – they have been by far the better managers in my experience) and the second is sacramental practice. For myself, I don’t think that the Conservative Evangelical argument works on this front – if you don’t see Christ being substantially in the elements then you really can’t have a problem with a woman saying the prayer of consecration because you don’t believe that the prayer of consecration or the pray-er of the prayer produces any substantive change in the bread and wine. However, if you take a more substantionist view of the Eucharist then *if* Christ has called men to signify him in a way that women cannot, the sex of the one who consecrates becomes crucially important.
On this issue I have been influenced by two things. The first was being challenged to read the debates and reports prior to the 1992 vote on women’s ordination. When I did this I was horrified (I deliberately choose this word – it was my response) at the paucity of the theology on the pro-WO side when it came to dealing with the issue of sacramental theology. There was simply little or no attempt to engage with arguments from Scripture, the Fathers and tradition on the issue of the vitality of the sex of the president. Secondly, my mind was made up by reading Consecrated Women, edited by Jonathan Baker. I have not read any substantive attempt to rebut the main thrust of this excellent submission to the Rochester Commission. Indeed, even the commission itself seemed to avoid responding to the majority of the text. IMHO the arguments in this book need to be substantially dealt with before you will convince me that Christ intended both men and women to preside at the Eucharist.
So these are the two issues where I think Scripture and Tradition are absolutely clear that the sex of the person involved is crucial. Anything else and I don’t see a problem, and in fact I wish more women would realise the call that God has given them and get out there and exercise the ministry they have been gifted for.
I’m sure we can go deeper on these if you want, and I’m always open to having a new perspective on these particular verses shared. Feel free to come back to me on any of these hastily scribbled thoughts.
Finally, I thought you’d like to know that only yesterday I was telling a friend about the absolutely brilliant liturgical dance sketch you did with Alison MS at the Wycliffe Review. I still can’t not think of Kate Bush everytime I see a tulip….
January 19th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Matt.. please allow me to respond. No, I don’t think opponents should ‘make life difficult’ simply to maintain their own integrity. But I think Peter’s (and others who agree with his arguments here) lack integrity on this issue in a number of ways.
First, you will see that this arose from a discussion of the 39 articles. Have a look at article 26 and then look at Peter’s very basic denial that somone who is lawfully ordained is actually ministering the sacraments: ”yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them;”
Secondly, the model of minstry that Peter seems to adopt regarding the elements of the eucharist is a ‘magical’ one, and assumes that somehow the individual minister transforms the bread and wine into different species. That possible contravenes several of the articles. But it also completely undermines the current C of E understanding of eucharistic theology. It is the gathered community, the body of Christ that celebrates the sacrament of the eucharist. The minister is called ‘president’ because they preside over that gathering.
Thirdly, if Peter wants to decide for himself that some people really are ordained and some people are not, it begs all kinds of questions about order in the C of E. I don’t happen to agree with the theology of some of my clergy colleagues - bishops, priests and deacons. But I can’t basically decide for myself they are not bishops priests or deacons. This is where Peter totally minsunderstands the word ‘reception’. The C of E has made allowances for those who don’t agree with the ordination of women. It have *never* said or implied that women who have been ordained might *not* actually be priests. And that they are priests is actually enshrined in the law of the land by an act of parliament, because we are an established church.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Hi Peter – thanks for the greeting, which I’ll pass on, and also for your full and gracious answer. It doesn’t read like a hasty scribble! I’m interested that your good experience with female bosses has created a conflict between principle and perception: my feeling is that those who have moved on this issue have done so because of excellent examples of women in ministry, when all the intellectual wrangling in the world would not shift them. This, together with the fact that hugely intelligent and thoughtful people are intellectually committed on either side of the argument, suggests to me that the investments are deeper and more complicated than differences of hermeneutical approach.
For that reason I wonder how fruitful these discussions will turn out to be, but as you’ve so generously set out your position I’d like to engage with some points you make. As for the first of the two issues you cite, I’m uneasy with the application of the Christ/Church analogy. To start with, as you indicate, the central passage (Ephesians 5. 22-33, I guess?) deals with marriage and is not presented as the final word on gender relations. It seems to me that Paul is using marriage culture as a way of illuminating the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the Church (see v 32), rather than the other way around. Moreover, the passage is about mutual submission and I find it difficult to make the connection between the self-denying, almost self-eviscerating love of the husband which you recognise here and the ‘final authority’ which men want to protect as their privileged sphere. It’s a bit of a hackneyed point, but part of the problem is with models of Christian leadership as authoritarian, masculine, dominant, power-broking and directive. Whatever they may protest to the contrary, unfortunately this is the pattern promoted in evangelical circles since the c19th, and many women in the ministry represent a corrective to it.
Also, the analogy is of course imperfect, unless we want to divinize men and make women stand for all that is human and fallible. It is also absent from Christ’s teachings (unless I’ve missed something) and it’s difficult to find the subordination-authority application of mystical marriage anywhere else in Scripture, and I think that should give us pause before we build a universal doctrine on those verses.
You acknowledge the pernicious power of misogyny in past generations, and unfortunately I think cultural change happens at a much slower pace than we think, but it is wonderful to see the restoration of women’s dignity in the Church. For people like me, the ordination of women makes sense in the context of Christ’s subversive and counter-cultural kingdom: raising up the humble and oppressed, bringing the marginalised into the centre, filling the hungry with good things, scattering the proud in the imaginations of their hearts. God’s instruments are always surprising (Deborah, David, Gideon, Jeremiah, Mary), and who are we to make rules about which section of humanity he is permitted to call and authorize? Galatians 3.28 is a wonderful statement of this radical levelling, but it is very far from being the only sign that this was part of Christ’s agenda.
As for the sacramental theology, well, I absolutely reject the idea that it is in the person of the priest that Christ is present at the eucharist. I also find it hard to see why men are more qualified to represent Christ than women, unless we say that men’s natures are closer to Christ’s dual humanity/divinity than women’s. As you say, it’s not really possible for evangelicals to take refuge in these defences.
Anyway, so glad you remember the liturgical dance sketch with fondness! They were happy days. Peace,
Sarah.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Sarah I think your whole post is such a clear and gracious statement of where most of us in the C of E are about the matter, and thank you for putting it so carefully. In particular the point you make about the Eucharist and about rejecting the idea that it is in the person of the priest that Christ is present at the eucharist. Christ is present in the body of Christ gathered to ‘do this remebrance of me’ – the priest is presiding over that gathering.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I hope we have moved on from the ‘misogyny’ accusations, but would just like to point out to Estelle and others that Forward in Faith has more women than men in its membership. We can’t all be misogynists!
Peter is right about ‘Consecrated Women’ – what a pity the theology wasn’t taken so seriously prior to 1992!
It is a shame that ministry and priesthood are so often confused, and also a shame that women’s ministry hasn’t been valued more in the past (i.e. paid!), then perhaps there might not have been this divisive clamour for ordination (for I can confirm that for a significant minority in the Church of England women bishops will never be acceptable).
January 19th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I agree, Jill, that it’s unfair to always label opposition to women’s ordination as misogyny (there are many important concerns about ecumenical relations, and genuine misgivings about revising historic traditions); but I disagree strongly with your assumption that the presence of women excludes the possibility of misogyny. Paradoxically, even some feminists show signs of it, in their polemic against housewives!
I also think that your accusation of ’divisiveness’ cuts both ways. There is a significant majority in the Church of England for whom the exclusion of women from the priesthood and episcopate will never be acceptable.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Sarah, it’s not a case of ‘exclusion’, it’s really not - only in the same sense that women are ‘excluded’ from becoming fathers! It is just a case of being the wrong role. It is naive to think that this question hasn’t been tested against scripture before - we have had 2,000 years to discern whether or not women should be ordained, so is it only now, following years of activism and by the skin of its teeth, we have got it right?
As for misogynists – well, there will always be some, I suppose, but the majority of priests I know are married men, and can in no way be regarded as such. I think you also have to look carefully at the motives of some of the women in WATCH – I suspect there is a fair sprinkling of misandrists … so perhaps they balance each other out.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Sarah,
Let me briefly come back on the initial points you raised in response to me.
i) I simply don’t think that changing one’s mind because you meet a bunch of nice people who do their work well works. For example, what if I were to introduce you to a lovely group of Mormons who are splendidly nice and graceful and welcoming and charitable. Would that make you change your theology? If not, then why do you expect for me to change my theology when you present effectively the same argument.
And let’s be clear, it is only these two aspects (authority and being the sacramental locus for the community) that is at issue. There is no other aspect of the work of pastoral ministry that I have any theological objection with a woman doing.
ii) Eph 5 is so part of the Biblical anthropology that I worry about your ease at dismissing it. Furthermore, you need to get around the issue of the wife submitting to the husband as contrasted to the husband loving the wife. You simply cannot argue (as some do) that that is just a 1st century cultural hangover. Where would you stop ripping out verses from the Bible?
I’m happy to accept the Eph 5 is specifically to do with marriage, but I present it as part of the over arching anthropology that recognises key difference between men and women and, whenever pressed on the point, places men ecclesiastically in a position of authority over women.
iii) I challenge you or anybody to demonstrate that Gal 3:28 is about anything else but soteriology. It is eisegesis of the first order to rip it out of the context of the surrounding verses which have absolutely nothing to do with ministry, vocation and gifting and everything to do with who can and cannot be saved.
iv) The issue of the sex of the president has more to do with Christ being present in the congregation through him rather than present in him. The priest acts as the locus for the church and therefore he is the one who represents what Christ has done. We see very clearly from Ephesians 5 that the husband (a man) is the one who signifies Christ and the Fathers very clearly understood that as extending to the role at the Eucharistic table. You would need to disregard a huge amount of Patristic thinking on the Eucharist to arrive at a position where women are able to preside and represent Christ.
This argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether men are more godly or divine than women (they are obviously not – Gal 3:28) and has everything to do with whether specific men are called to act as such a locus and other men and all women are not.
January 19th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Good to hear back from you, and thank you for taking the time to engage so seriously with what I said. You’re right to take me to task for suggesting that we ought to change our theology solely on the basis of experience. To clarify, I see the theological arguments for women’s ordination as extremely compelling, and biblical, and many serious theologians and evangelical Christians do too – whereas I find no grounds on which to accept Mormon claims. I can see excellent reasons for taking your position and for taking mine: in such a perplexed situation ’seeing it work’ and seeing God work through it does in fact make a crucial difference. If you put the theological arguments for women’s ordination on the same footing as Mormonism, well that’s a different matter. Personally, I don’t.
As for the Christ and the Church analogy, I do think it provides a marvellous analogy but not an exact one, and I don’t think that sexual difference is as central to a biblical anthropology as you do. Galatians 3.28 is about soteriology, sure, but doesn’t soteriology have profound implications for anthropology? If God restores both men and women from the effects of the Fall in Christ and dissolves the differences between them, then shouldn’t we behave as if women are freed from the curse of subjection? I didn’t say the passage was about vocation (any more than Ephesians 5 is), but, like your application of Ephesians 5 it forms part of the framework in which I understand God’s calling and relationship to men and women.
I’m still finding it hard to understand why men can represent Christ in any real and sacramental way more effectively than women, which is presumably why they would be called to do so. I also think Protestants are pretty selective with their acceptance of patristic authority, so I’m not sure that’s a very fruitful route.
Anyway, I’m not trying to have a go here, I’m extremely respectful of your analysis, I just want to try to do justice to the other side of the argument: probably not with great success.
Jill, I’ve no doubt that there are people in the women’s ordination movement with complicated motives, and I’m sorry if I implied that wasn’t the case. We have to accept that there is broken humanity, but also that there is real integrity, on both sides! As for the 2000 years of history, I’ve recently been looking at biblical arguments for women’s ministry and full sexual equality in c17th England, but such debates go back deep into the early Renaissance. So yes, you’re right, it has been visited before. I do think it’s equally naive, and dangerous, to think that human beings can’t get something badly wrong for 2000 years.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Sarah, as you are obviously interested and not just coming at this issue with pre-set ideas, as so many are, (for which – thank you!) I recommend that you read ‘Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ by Wayne Grudem and John Piper, which is far shorter than ‘Consecrated Women’ but sets out clearly, in my view, the theological arguments against women’s ordination. You will see from this that the issue is far more wide-reaching and significant than a few verses of scripture, and the possible roles of some of the women in the early church, which may (or may not) give some credence to the ‘pro’ argument, and perhaps you will understand better why so many theologians, clergy and laity will never be able to accept women bishops.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cb.....pter2.html
January 21st, 2009 at 10:11 am
In a small voice, may I suggest that before you get to the various debates from the New Testament, you should perhaps revisit your understanding of Genesis. I haven’t read Grudem, but Claire Smith in recording number six on this page .. http://www.matthiasmedia.com.a.....quipdbdmp3 .. puts the New Testament passages into perspective IMHO.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:46 am
Thanks Jill and Rosemary. I will look into both of those when I have a bit of time. For my part, I recommend a concise statement of the ‘pro’ argument by Tom Wright and David Stancliffe:
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.or.....fm?doc=126
Rosemary, why should your voice be any smaller than anyone else’s here? Your opening gambit made me feel rather sad.
As for Genesis, I’ll need some fairly strong convincing that it supports the case against women’s ordination! We’ll see. Thanks again.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Tom Wright is an excellent biblical scholar of course, and the thread of the tradition/scripture argument in the piece that Sarah refers us to is very carefully and graciously constructed.
Genesis of course knows nothing of the ordination of women, or the ordination of men for that matter. It is arguable that the New Testament knows anything about ordination as we practise it in the Church and that is major problem for any of us who want to argue from scripture – Tom Wright included. But in conversation with our local synagogue, it is interesting to hear that the attitude of the Pentateuch towards women is to be regarded as ‘culturally conditioned’ and ‘of its day’ rather than binding for all time. Women would not, by any means, have been permitted as Rabbis - but they are now. Segregation of the sexes was de riguer in Jewish worship – but it is not now. I think, like Sarah, that Genesis is unlikely to help persaude us that women should not be Priests in the C of E…..
January 21st, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Sarah, if I may start at the end. A small voice for several reasons, the main one being perhaps the number of knock backs I’ve had over the years from women determined on what they refer to as total equality. But also because I genuinely see this as a second order issue and both my husband [vicar] and I have proved this by working for a church that has ordained women since 1990. Thirdly, my bishop is a woman who has and will have my full support as long as her priority is Jesus Christ and His church. There are other reasons, those are the main ones. I don’t want to ‘rock the boat,’ because I consider other issues such as reaching the lost, far more important.
If I may say a couple of things before getting to Tom Wright’s piece. I don’t think ordaining women is wrong necessarily, but I DO think it makes it much more difficult for women in those roles, to accomplish what God wants them to accomplish. I desire to see many more women in ministry, not less, but would like to ask why many women are seeking ordination as a validation of their ministries.
Now on to Tom Wright’s points in section B. 1. An apostle is one who is sent [with a message.] I have no problem whatsoever that women are apostles in that sense.
2. Equally I have no problem, in fact would insist, that women have been entrusted with the message of the Gospel and are to take that with them and share it everyday.
3. This is a great sentence .. “Within that, the roles of men and women are re-evaluated, not (to be sure) to make them identical or interchangeable in any and all respects, but to celebrate their complementarity, not least their complementary apostolic witness to Jesus’ resurrection.” I think his final reference to Acts 9:2 is less certain. I’m quite certain that women had very important roles to play in the ‘new creation,’ renewing the equality between men and women, but what makes him say women are leading the whole community?
4. I don’t really understand this paragraph, I’m not at all sure what ‘sacramental assurance’ is, so I won’t comment further.
5. This is where I suggest that a clear understanding of Genesis, creation and the role of women, helps in understanding the New Testament texts. Really it will be for you to say whether or not you find it helpful after you’ve heard it. I’m not so much interested in trying to prove one way or another whether women can or should be ordained, [in fact I’d go back to my question, why does a woman wish to be ordained] as I am in discovering what God wanted our role to be, so that I may best attempt to fulfil that role.
6. Does this paragraph refer to the worry that so many of our Anglo/Catholic brothers and sisters have? If so, I don’t share it, we are as the Bible says, a ‘new creation’ .. or attempting to be.
7. Nice to see that he does refer to Genesis!!! I’m quite sure that the new creation does envisage men and women working together, that is certainly my aim and the aim of the many women in full time ministry in our parish church. For instance within our parish we have a full time paid woman’s worker. The Diocesan Manager comes from our parish. Every committee or Bible Study group [other than the one all male one, just as the all female one has no male] has a mixture of men and women in leadership.
8. No quibble either with this last point, but yet again my question. Why is the search for ‘equality’ hung up on the question of ordination. To my mind there is virtually no limit to the ministry of women, no limit to the way we might help and support our husbands if we’re married, or our church. We need far more women who know with certainty that they are indeed completely and absolutely equal in Christ, and far more discussion of the role and importance of women in the church.
I feel this pre-occupation of many women who seek ordination as if it somehow validates their ministry, could go two ways. At best, it could result in a renewal, a re-discovery of the importance of the role of women in the church. Or it could become a ‘battle of the sexes’ which is the last thing we need. Particularly as women have already shown a tendency to empty the teaching profession of men, and now the medical profession. That’s why it’s so important to discover exactly what role God has called us to. We need to be working to reach the lost, working together as men and women for Gospel work in all it’s aspects, not trying to claim equality of roles .. or worse, superiority of one over another on the grounds of gender.
One of the biggest dangers you have in the UK as I understand it, is one that we’ve had for a long time here. You are about to empty your church of those who do not agree with the ordination of women. There is only one Diocese in this country that will accept anyone for ordination who does not fully agree with WO, and that hasn’t been accomplished by Synodical agreement. No other Diocese will accept for training or ordination, anyone not in full agreement with WO .. so by default they are disappearing. Is that what you want for England?
Many years hence, certainly not in my lifetime, I think the church, while it won’t actually rescind WO, will in a pragmatic sense, realise that it must stop ordaining so many women. 1. On the whole, men are the breadwinners, and therefore men can monetarily support the church or not, an evangelistic outreach or not. Two, again making a generalization, men find it extremely difficult to hear about the Gospel from a woman, but listen to another man more readily. Take for example a League club, or a cricket club, do you send a woman into such a place as an evangelist? We [here at least] urgently need more men in the church, ordaining women is not accomplishing that. What it has accomplished is that ordained women are now so numerous that ordained men are outvoted at every synodical gathering.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Can I just pick up on one thing in what Rosemary has just written? Para 5 of Wright’s piece lays out very simply why we need to be wary of resting objections to women’s ordination solely in specific English translations of the greek text. As I have also argued above, the NT clobber verses might not quite mean what the con evo argument says they mean, but an objection to ordaining women rests in a broader anthropology.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Hello all,
would like to put a couple of things to you – hope i’m not cutting completely across the conversation but some of this might link to Peter’s comment from Jan 19th, perhaps especially the bit about patristic teaching. Wonder what people make of the following quotation. It’s from an article in The Tablet by Prof Nicholas Lash, from 2 Dec 1995 – easily found on the web.
“…far from there being a teaching that has been “from the beginning constantly preserved and applied”, the question as to whether the “representation” of Christ requires that those who preside at the celebration of the Eucharist be men, was never even asked until about half way throughout the present century. In the second place, on the rare occasions in the history of the Church at which the question as to the suitability of women to hold hierachial office has been raised, it has, indeed, always been answered in the negative. There is, in other words, a teaching that has been from the beginning “constantly preserved and applied”: namely, that women cannot be ordained to apostolic office because they are inferior to men.
“It follows that, if we set aside (as the present Pope has indicated that we should wisely do) arguments based on the inferiority of women, there simply is no traditional teaching on the matter. The question, as now raised, is a new question. Like all new questions, it needs time, patience, attentiveness, sensitivity and careful scholarship.”
(Lash was arguing against Pope John Paul II’s ‘infallible’ assertion that women could never be ordained).
The other thing I’d like to put to you is that if it’s the case that in Jesus God assumes full humanity, not solely maleness, surely a woman can signify Christ at the Eucharistic table?
in friendship, Blair
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Blair,
“…far from there being a teaching that has been “from the beginning constantly preserved and applied”, the question as to whether the “representation” of Christ requires that those who preside at the celebration of the Eucharist be men, was never even asked until about half way throughout the present century.
May I in response proffer the following?
Tertullian, in The Prescription of Heretics 41, says: “How wanton are the women of these heretics! they dare to teach, . to dispute, to carry out exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize.” In his work On veiling virgins 9. 1:”It is not permissible for a woman to speak in church, nor may she teach, baptize, offer, or claim for herself any function proper to a man, and least of all the office of priest.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Haereses 1. 31. 2 “After this he gave women mixed chalices and told them to give thanks in his presence. Then he took another chalice much larger than that on which the deceived woman gave thanks, and, pouring from the smaller… to the much later. . the larger chalice was filled from the smaller chalice and overflowed.”
Firmilian, in Epistle 75. 1-5 to Cyprian, tells of a woman who went into an ecstasy and came out a prophetess. “That woman who first through marvels or deceptions of the demons did many things to deceive the faithful, among other things… she dared to do this, namely that by an impressive invocation she feigned she was sanctifying bread, and offering a sacrifice to the Lord.”
Origen, in a Fragment of his commentary on 1 Cor 14:34 tells of the four daughters of Philip; who prophesied, yet they did not speak in the Churches. We do not find that in the Acts of the Apostles… . For it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.”
St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79. 304 wrote: “If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary… . She was not even entrusted with baptizing… Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman’s insanity?” In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white.”Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference’ For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, ” [Gal. 3:"28]
St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said “Feed my sheep” only to Peter. “Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church… let the entire female sex retire.” And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: “Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it.”
St. Augustine, On heresies 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. “They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood.”
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I believe Blair’s point was that the issue of a female representing Christ at the eucharist was not one which occupied patristic writers. I don’t see this question being addressed in any of the passages cited.
I’d be interested to know, Peter, if you accept all the attitudes and instructions expressed in these quotations. Eg, that women shouldn’t enter the sanctuary? Or that teaching is a function proper to the male? Or that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I read Peter’s last post and thought to myself .. “Ah, so THAT’s how men slipped from dominion into the sin of domination.”
You may indeed have proven that the matter has been under consideration for a long time Peter, but your reply is far from ‘friendly’ towards women.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
The issue at hand was whether the question of female presidency only began recently. The quotes I have given do demonstrate that it has been a debate for the life of the Church – for example the St Epiphanius quote about women being priests de facto refers to the matter, since priests preside.
For the record I do not agree with all the texts presented and you’re absolutely right Rosemary that some demonstrate attitudes that are quite unchristian (IMHO). However, they do demonstrate that the issue was the topic of discussion in the early years of the church.
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Leaving aside for one moment the theological arguments – in my view, it will never be proven beyond all doubt from scripture that women should be priests – I would like to pick up on Rosemary’s last paragraph in her penultimate post.
It must be obvious by now that a Code of Practice is not going to be enough to keep a significant minority in the Church of England once we get women bishops. Leaving aside too the question of where do we go, those of us who don’t want to go to Rome, or Orthodoxy, or become Methodists or Baptists – who will be left in the C of E?
It must be apparent also that once 2,000 years of tradition is overturned, the wall has been breached, and innovations will be able to flood in. Who is to stop them? The Church of England lost around 600 orthodox clergy in 1992/3, and countless laity, and many more will be lost when women bishops come upon the scene. In no time at all we will have practising gay bishops (key WATCH people are tucked snugly up in bed with Inclusive Church, and have been for some time) and then what? Will people still be debating the finer points of Junia/Junius and the ‘priesthood of all believers’ as the believers depart?
We are following blindly down the road which TEC has taken, and which has emptied churches.
We can only see through a glass darkly; only God has the whole picture, and I believe that He intended men to lead in His church. I should add here that I haven’t always thought this way – and I personally know two women priests, who are doing a fine job – it has dawned upon me over a period as I saw unforeseen and unwelcome happenings, and felt that this wasn’t how it was meant to be.
I am encouraged to see that a number of blogs are now carrying threads discussing women’s ordination, when even just a few years ago it was regarded as a done deal, and thought that dissenters would just get used to it. It is now apparent that we will not, and that we will be unchurched. This might please some, but I think a great many people feel a lot of unease about it.
January 24th, 2009 at 8:09 am
First it was Sarah, now it is I who feel sad. I’m not quite sure what to say to you Jill. How difficult it is to share of oneself through this medium. If I’m somewhat blunt, I hope you will forgive me.
Jill, when we got our new Bishop [a lady], one clergyman left this Diocese and returned to the UK, to a chaplaincy job I think. That person was a genuine Anglo Catholic! I say that because we don’t actually have too many of those around at all. His conscience absolutely would not let him remain believing as he did. I understood. I’m extremely sorry, because this Diocese needs him .. but I understood.
Among the ordained Evangelical community here, by far the majority have no problem with the fact that we have a female Bishop, but it hasn’t been as easy or as straightforward for those of us who believe as I do. It was relatively easy to function, and function well, before .. but we’ve had to really search our hearts and allow Jesus to talk to us through His Scriptures to arrive at the place where we can say .. with our hands on our hearts .. “Yes, this IS a second order issue.” A matter of adiaphora as the Windsor Report has it. If we leave, WE make it a first order issue, and this is what you need to do at this moment in time I suggest. Take time to let that sink in. Pray about it, look for answers in your daily readings.
It’s entirely possible that those who oppose us will themselves make this a first order issue, and find a way to exclude us from our ministry. This is in fact already happening. In that case, it’s a whole different ball game as our American brothers and sisters would say. Meanwhile, I have a couple of suggestions ..
1. The successful parishes in this Diocese are ALL evangelical
2. We personally have a very successful women’s ministry both paid and unpaid. Perhaps other women might envy that work? Also support for one another amongst our womenfolk is BIG, especially for young mums.
3. We must make every effort to support the ministry of clergymen in our area, but ESPECIALLY those who themselves support the ministry of women!!
I said in a previous post that I believe [but not in my lifetime] that without rescinding the synodical decision, eventually the huge numbers of women being ordained will lessen. I think that is true. Women can be and ARE extremely good at ministry in SOME areas, but we need our menfolk, and they need us to be whole. I think eventually that will be recognised. But if everyone who believes as we do has left..??
I don’t know you Jill, I don’t know your theology, so I may be talking entirely out of turn and your conscience may indeed not permit you to stay. But I would ask that you allow the sense of what I say above, to have time to ’sink in’ .. and I believe that will take some time, it did with me anyway.
January 25th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Rosemary, I was touched by the tone of your post, which was very kind – I have been posting on this topic for some years now, and am far more accustomed to hostile and angry responses, such as some of the ones Peter received earlier in this thread, heavily laced with references to my moral defectiveness! It is not often I get any sympathy, I can tell you, either for myself or the many thousands of others in my position! As to my theology, I am more of an Anglo Catholic but certainly lower ‘down the candle’ than some – I was brought up on the Book of Common Prayer (1662), so am fairly typical of C of E ‘traditionalists’ (for want of a better word).
But this is not about me – even though I was hoping that our current system of flying bishops would see me out!! (I am still praying for a miracle!) It is my grandchildren, and the future of the Church of England, that I worry about. Since 2006 we have more women being ordained than men. I don’t know when the ‘tipping point’ will be reached when we have equal numbers of male and female clergy, but my belief is that, once that happens, men will gradually stop coming forward for ordination. I might of course be wrong, but it happens in other walks of life. Once we have women bishops it could all happen quite quickly, as many more male clergy would depart, of that I am certain. I cannot see a weak and effeminate church being very attractive to either men or women.
There are other practical reasons why I think women priests are less suitable – not the least of them being that women are the family nurturers and cannot devote the whole of their energy to their calling in the same way that men do. This will no doubt anger feminists, but that is the way things are! Neither can it be denied that part-time, or approaching-retirement, ministry is not such a good proposition as full-time.
Just one other thing is this: Anglo Catholics were quite happy to work alongside proponents of women priests provided we were allowed to continue to believe what the church had always believed – that the priesthood should be male. Proponents of WO do not want to co-exist with us (as was shown in the recent Synod vote – they want us out if we do not conform to their ways, or be at the mercy of their whims and vagaries. Just what kind of a Church do we want to be?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Jill – can we just be clear that we actually DO have practising gay Bishops in the C of E and have had for years. That’s why many of us believe that integrity is really being pushed beyond the limit by those who protest about the matter. The new chairperson of CEEC is an interesting case. I presume he must be very very naive, because he really doesn’t have to look very far in his own C of E diocese to see a partnered gay bishop, (and numerous partnered gay clergy too) . The kind of Church we want to be is one that has integrity. You will find that Anglo Catholics simply don’t want to debate the matter of gay clergy – there are far too many partnered gay clergy and laity in the ranks of anglo catholic churches for the debate to be comfortable.
Secondly, it is very clear that the vast majority of people regard the issue of women’s ordination as a second order one, as Rosemary has carefully pointed out. Now I can only guess from here and elsewhere, that you regard it as first order issue. But that is not how the Anglican church sees it – witness the fact the vast majority of provinces ordain women as priests. It is NOT that we want you out if you disagree. It is simply that we want you to recognise that a decision has been made that can’t be reversed. You can’t un-ordain all the women across the world in the Anglican church, and you can’t un-decide something that has already been decided. By all means stay – but don’t stay in some pretend world. Peter has amply demonstrated the mental gymnastics that are required to do that. And it is just something else that lacks integrity.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Sound,
I’d like you to have the courage of your convictions and to publicly name who the same-sex partnered (or sexually active) Bishops are. I think most of us know who the person in London Diocese who you are intimating is, but you are suggesting he is not the only one. Who then?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Peter I don’t think naming gets us very far does it? Peter Tatchell has done that and it doesn’t get anyone anywhere. I think you are bright enough to work out what’s what. And I think Richard Chartres is sufficiently clear to know that ‘we don’t open windows into men’s souls’. But he also knows the Diocese of London won’t survive without the black suited clergy, especially in certain episcopal areas, many of whom happen to be gay and partnered. Or do you want to actually deny their existence? Integrity is very important….but so is discretion.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I think, to be fair, at the moment you’re the one who is trying to deny their existence. Just come out and name them. What of integrity?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Well at least it seems we are agreed that we have gay, partnered bishops in the C of E (and I assume Jill will take note). That is a step towards integrity. I have no need to name them. Where would that get us? Do you want to stand outside their houses and seek proof? Do you think it *is* right to open windows into men’s souls?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I know ’sound’ that you’re what is known as a ‘troll’ in internet jargon .. but that is just what Jesus does .. opens windows into our souls.
That matter you are treating with less than ‘integrity’ IS a first order issue, a matter of salvation .. and not to be treated lightly.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Rosemary, I don’t think having a debate about integrity *is* to be treated lightly, and neither do I think it is a matter of ‘trolling’. I’ve seen the word used casually, and mostly by conservatives when they simply don’t like being reminded of certain facts.
The Church of England has the Elizabethan settlement as one of its foundations. It was Queen Elizabeth who refused to ‘make windows into men’s souls … there is only one Jesus Christ and all the rest is a dispute over trifles’; So I am sure that she (and indeed I) would agree with you that Jesus Christ *does* open windows into our souls, and we are content to leave it to him to do so.
As to homosexuality being a first order issue: that’s clearly a matter of debate within the Anglican Communion at the moment, and that’s the reason this blog exists. But my point is very simple. The debate does not change the fact that we have partnered gay bishops in the C of E. Peter and I clearly agree on that very fact, but Jill, in her post, was denying it.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Tsk Rosemary, you know better than to feed a troll .. off to bed with you. Night all
January 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Sound,
The House of Bishops themselves have said very clearly that they demand of clergy that they are celibate and that that demand should be confirmed by clergy who (for example) enter into a Civil Partnership. I think you really need to take it up with the Bishops, not me.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Peter, I understand what you are saying, but I’m not actually taking anything up with you. I’m talking about integrity as a point of debate with Jill, who raised the matter on your blog and who seems to think we don’t have any gay bishops in the C of E. In fact the point about celibacy doesn’t bother me so long as there is fidelity. So I have no need to take that up with the bishops. The point about integrity I *have* taken up with the bishops, and simply get the response that ‘we don’t make windows into men’s souls…’ I suspect that is simply a way of not wanting to know don’t you?
January 26th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Sound,
We finally agree on something!!! Yes, it sounds to me that the response you are getting is a way of simply not wanting to know, the Church of England equivalent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
As to the wider issue of whether there are homosexually active bishops in the CofE, I am aware of Bishops who would happily self-identify as homosexual, but to be honest, I have never had a definitive evidence presented to me about current homosexual activity, including the specific example you have alluded to above. I think I will reserve judgement on that until someone provides me with the relevant proof.
The wider issue I was raising was that we simply can’t use the “Of course we all know there are homosexually active Bishops” argument unless someone is happy to name them. Until that moment it’s a bit like me saying “Well yes, we all know that there are Bishops living in polygamous relationships”, but not being willing to identify the specific individuals. Hardly helps in my ongoing campaign to be allowed to marry as many women as I want!!
For the record, for those who take these things a tad too seriously, I don’t actually know of any polygamous Bishops (well, not one’s who aren’t Mormon) and I don’t actually want to marry any other women.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Please point me, Sound, to the part of my post where I have denied that we have gay bishops. I know perfectly well that we have – always have had, and always will. We have had a homosexual Archbishop of Canterbury (although celibate). You say we should not be peering through windows into men’s souls – well, that’s a bit rich, when we can’t turn round without having homosexuality shoved into our faces! I actually prefer not to know what people do in their bedrooms. It’s none of my business. What I resent is it being forced upon me. The former Archbishop of York resisted all Peter Tatchell’s attempts to ‘out’ him by declaring his sexuality to be a ‘grey area’, and nothing to do with anyone but himself and God. Many men live Godly and chaste lives, and should be left in peace. That is what I call integrity. Forcing ‘acceptance’ of unbiblical practices upon people is just a pernicious form of bullying.
Having the vicar’s male partner move into the vicarage with him is a surefire emptier of churches, as we have seen from TEC. Many people in TEC are now looking back at women’s ordination and realising it was just a step along this road. It’s a pity we in the Church of England are not learning from them.
By the way, I only know of one gay bishop at present, and have no idea whether he is ‘partnered’ or not – which suits me just fine.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Yes Peter, I suspect it is the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach. My guess, from what Jill writes, is that she supports it.
Jill – just for clarity – you said ’In no time at all we will have practising gay bishops’. and you said it on January 23rd at 5.10pm on this thread.
My point is that we do, and always have had.
I agree that Petert Tatchell’s technique is not especially helpful – but that doesn’t mean he was wrong in his facts.
I think the truth is that many people live ’split’ lives, and the Church colludes with it. I don’t think that was Jesus’ approach. The story of the women at the well demonstrates that amply.
Now, personally I don’t care that we have had successive area bishops in London Diocese who are gay and partnered. It’s a pretty open secret in the Diocese. But it does challenge your assumption that women’s ordination will be closely followed by gay bishops, as by and large, those gay bishops we HAVE had in the C of E have been pretty openly opposed to the ordination of women. If you look at the list of Bishops ‘outed’ in 1994 you will see that several of them were vehement opposers of the ordination of women. So I don’t see your logic Jill.
Damian Thompson wrote an excellent piece in his blog back in 2007 about the don’t ask don’t tell’ approach and I quote just some of it here:
…. an article has appeared in this week’s Church of England Newspaper claiming – quite correctly – that the C of E is the most gay-friendly Church in the world, easily outstripping any other province of the Anglican Communion.
That is because its bishops routinely ignore their own official guidelines on homosexuality – and especially civil partnerships.
The article is by Christopher Morgan, a well-connected religious commentator who, many years ago, was best man at Rowan Williams’s wedding. It’s a good piece – he has done his homework – but it will shock some of the Church of England Newspaper’s evangelical readers.
It is not available free online, so let me quote the relevant passage. The background is that, according to a House of Bishops’ “pastoral statement”, a bishop is supposed to inquire into the nature of a priest’s gay relationship, to ensure that it is non-sexual, before giving a civil partnership his approval.
Morgan writes: “I do not think even one bishop has enquired into the bedroom arrangements of clergy in civil partnerships, as the statement suggested, but I heard recently of an absurd consequence of the statement.
“A priest about to enter into a civil partnership thought it would be courteous to tell his diocesan bishop of his plan. The diocesan in turn asked his suffragan, himself widely rumoured to be gay, to contact the priest.
“And, of course, the conversation never touched on the private aspects of the relationship.”
Morgan goes on to talk about gay bishops in the Church, and says that George Carey told him on tape that he had ordained at least two. In fact, Dr Carey actually named the two bishops. One of the names came as no surprise, since (if my memory serves me) the bishop had, as a priest, once served as a judge for Mr Gay UK.
My senior source, as I say, reckons that 20 bishops are obviously gay; probably there are more. And the conclusion I draw from this is the same as Chris Morgan’s: since homosexual bishops are a fait accompli, isn’t it time for both sides in this increasingly boring debate to pipe down?
January 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“20 Bishops are obviously gay”?
Blimey – send me the list (just out of curiosity, of course).
January 27th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Well that’s a question for Damian Thompson I guess! But I expect his response will be (as yours has been on here before now, and mine has been, tacitly, to you above) that a good journalist does not reveal sources or name names! I am pretty sure, from my own enquiries, that the figure is not wrong. And I’m also pretty clear that George Carey knowingly ordained some, as is claimed in the blog.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
He doesn’t have to reveal his source, he just has to tell us the names!!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Sound, I thought I had said ‘openly practising gay bishops’ so I apologise. We may well have practising gay bishops – it is the ‘open’ bit that is the rub.
I am not exactly justifying ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – I am saying that we don’t know what private struggles people have with any addiction, sexual or otherwise – clergy are certainly not immune from these. There may be numerous same-sex attracted bishops, for all I know. That isn’t the issue. Nor is it the issue that George Carey would have consecrated some. I daresay he consecrated some alcoholics too! We can’t defrock everyone who falls by the wayside occasionally – bishops are human, too, after all, and nobody wants a witch hunt.
No, my problem is what you call ‘partnered’ bishops (and clergy) – those who publicly flaunt their sexual misdemeanours. What would you say if the vicar booted his wife and children out of the vicarage and moved his mistress in? I include in this category not just SSA men, but those who teach that same-sex sexual relationships are Godly, when they are plainly not.
But you are right, this is boring, but it will not ‘pipe down’ as you put it, it will eventually empty the churches. And even Gene Robinson recognises that women bishops are necessary for ‘inclusion’ of gays and lesbians into the Episcopate. The movers and shakers of the Inclusive Church movement are involved in WATCH (Women and the Church). Also, the comprehensive 1992 survey of Church of England clergy showed that the ‘belief quotient’ of women clergy was significantly lower than their male counterparts, not only in credal doctrine but on moral and ethical issues including ordination of practising homosexuals (which 48% of women supported, as opposed to 29% of men.) (Source: Mind of Anglicans Survey 2002, conducted by Christian Research.)
I’m afraid I simply don’t believe that there are 20 homosexually ‘partnered’ bishops in the Church of England. If there are, they cannot be ‘openly’ so, because Peter obviously hasn’t heard of them, and neither have I. If you are right, this is a powder keg just waiting to explode!
January 27th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Jil, do read Damian Thompson’s bit again. Clearly we don’t have 20 ‘openly’ gay bishops – but that is not what he claims. Obviously is different to ‘openly’.
I do know several clergy in civil partnerships and their experience is just as described in the piece quoted above… and frankly to assume that at least some are not having a physical relationship would be just naive.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I beg your pardon again, sound. Obviously gay – by that I assume you mean with effeminate characteristics. I don’t think I have a problem with that. When I was young we used to call them ‘bachelors’, or ‘not the marrying kind’. I would not like to discover that they were sexually active, but if I don’t know about it, then I am not required to judge, and we can co-exist harmoniously. I believe that God will be their judge, and I am perfectly happy with that arrangement!
As to the Civil Partnerships, I think it was a bad mistake for the C of E to allow them. It has created a ridiculous situation, and puts the onus on individual bishops, which is unfair. It is also unfair on their brother priests. A blanket ban would have been a far better way forward. The current situation has made the Church a laughing-stock.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Hmm, interesting thread (we had a gay bishop in Glasgow you know, although he didn’t come out until retiring which is cheating somewhat). Think the Scott Rennie Church of Scotland case will have quite an impact on these debates (incidently,I’m curious how the evangelical aversion to divorce comes into play when men leave their wife and kids for male partners; surely we wouldn’t *expect* Christian women to stay married to such men even if one *did* believe that gays can change?)
I’m not really sure how apparent sex-free Civil Partnerships are ok from an evangelical perspective either. I thought celibacy , in the priestly sense, involved more than just abstaining from sex?
January 28th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Hi Ryan,
I’m not sure either how a celibate relationship which prevents you from entering into the two states of life that Scripture commends (uncommitted singleness or marriage to someone of the other sex) can be correct.
Would love to know more about this Bishop who came out after retiring. Had he been partnered? More info!!!!
January 28th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Jill – for clarity – I actually don’t mean anything by the term ‘obviously gay’ because it is not my term. You are attrributing to me things I have quoted from Damian Thompson.
But the point remains – you will still find that most of our obviously gay bishops are Anglo Catholics and actually opposed to the ordination of women – the subject of this thread - so I’m puzzled by your ‘logic’.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Derek Rawcliffe, Bishop of Glasgow 1981-1991, who came out in 1995. Don’t know much else about him, alas.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Of course, silly me.
To be honest, Rawcliffe is a complicated case. An anthropologist (which explains the amount of time he spent in Melanesia), there is some debate as to what effect living in that environment for a long time may have had upon his western moral sensitivities.
January 29th, 2009 at 7:03 am
I am not at all surprised that ‘obviously gay’ bishops and clergy are mostly Anglo Catholic. Perhaps it is the dressing-up, or the ‘theatricals’ of the High Mass that they go for! Or perhaps the current crop of bishops have been harvested from St Stephen’s House, Oxford, which was reputed to have as many as 90% of gay students in the 1960s and 70s (who called each other by girls’ names) until David Hope (he of the ‘grey area’) reined in the excesses when he was made principal. You can read about the shenanigans at St Stephen’s House in this article by William Oddie:
http://findarticles.com/p/arti.....i_n8755266
But that doesn’t answer your question. I would say that most Anglo Catholics are opposed to the ordination of women. If proper provision is not made for them, they will leave the Church of England for other pastures, no doubt about that. This will leave the door wide open for not only WO but all sorts of other innovations in the C of E.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Hi Peter+
I’m a bit late jumping on this discussion, but thought perhaps I could add something to your thesis about males being made for “final authority.” Would anyone object if I talked about my experience? Hehehe..
My Mom and I differ on this issue. She supports WO and I do not. We have an implicit agreement not to discuss the issue, as it presents difficulties for both of us in keeping the Fifth Commandment.
I remember one conversation with her where she was talking about her attraction to Roman Catholicism (Please, I’m not making a dig on the RCC). She concluded the conversation by saying that her father would “roll over in his grave,” if she converted to Roman Catholicism.
Now, Mom knows that people don’t really roll over in their graves, and she knows that her father most certainly isn’t the same man he was on earth, being part of that great cloud of witnesses. What I find interesting is that, even passed away, her father is still the final authority. It’s all the more amazing that she takes her father’s role for granted, even while consciously embracing pro-WO arguments, more or less on egalitarian grounds. No, she’s not a silly woman by any measure. She’s just a bit inconsistent on this point (as we all are, at times).
Men are created to be the final authorities and final protectors. Bearing these burdens isn’t the same as ’lording it over’ everyone else; it’s just living up to the Burdon we were created to bear. For men to opt out of bearing it recapitulates the first misogynist (Adam) standing by as Eve was being tempted by the Serpent (c.f., Gen 3:6), as well as many other tales of spineless misogyny in the Scriptures.
..my 2 cents. :)
January 29th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Jill, you are still completely missing the point.
Your ‘logic’ earlier on was that once we allowed women’s ordiantion we opened the door to homosexual clergy. Demonstrably that logic is wrong – because most of the homosexaul clergy we already have are vehemently opposed to the ordination of women. And that was certainly the case at St Stephen’s House.. And Mirfield. And Chichester. Many many gay students, many many opposed to the ordination of women. I suspect you need to re-think your argument on that one…
(Chichester is now closed of course….the other two still use girls names for some male students)
January 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Moot,
Are you trying to use the example of your mother’s respect for her father’s memory as evidence of the created status of male authority? And are you saying that men allowing women to make mistakes is an example of misogyny? I dread to consider the implications of what you’re saying; it might lead to controlling women’s moral and intellectual agency in the name of philogyny.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I’m not sure what you’re getting at, sound. I think you are trying to confuse the issue. My contention is that women are more comfortable than men with homosexuality, and it will therefore be easier for openly practising homosexuals to be consecrated as bishops once we have women bishops. I don’t think for one moment that ALL ordained practising homosexuals will be swimming the Tiber!
I agree with Moot that the father is usually the final authority, however strong the mother may be! I have just been re-reading an article by Robbie Low entitled ‘The Truth about Men’ – it mentions a Swiss study on the likelihood of children of churchgoers continuing churchgoing once they are grown. It is interesting to note that ‘if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife’s devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers. If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife’s devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally. A non-practising mother (with a regular father) will see a minimum of two thirds of her children ending up at church. A non-practising father (faithful mother) will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door. If his wife is similarly negligent that figure will rise to 80 per cent!’
I find that highly significant. He goes on to say ‘ Emasculated liturgy, gender-free Bibles and a fatherless flock are increasingly on offer. In response to this, decline has, unsurprisingly, accelerated. To minister to a fatherless society the Church of England, in its unwisdom, has produced its own single-parent family parish model in the woman priest. The idea of this politically contrived iconic destruction and biblically disobedient initiative was that it would make the Church relevant to the society in which it ministered.’
I believe in our broken society we need a strong male presence in the Church, for people who do not get it anywhere else. Anyhow, the article is well worth reading.
http://trushare.com/83APR02/AP02LOW.htm
January 31st, 2009 at 9:40 am
Hi Sarah,
|
RE: “Are you trying to use the example of your mother’s respect for her father’s memory as evidence of the created status of male authority?”
|
Actually no. My point was not that she was respecting her father’s memory, but rather that she looks up her father (even in death) as her protector.
|
RE: “And are you saying that men allowing women to make mistakes is an example of misogyny?”
|
Hmm, that’s quite a loaded statement.
|
Let’s take it to a level that both of us can relate to. I have authority over a 34-month-old child. My child likes to climb, much like I and her mother did at that age. At the same time, she does not have an understanding of the physical world, and does not understand that carpeted floors are softer than tiled supermarket floors.
|
So, how do I keep my child safe from injury? If I forbid my child to climb on anything ever, then she may grow up to be afraid of her own shadow, or worse, to be attracted to the sort of domineering men who you and I both despise. On the other hand, if I turned my back while my child was trying to defy the laws of physics on a shopping cart, when I truly knew that she was going to fall and seriously hurt herself, then chances are that my child would injure herself, and I’d be in a lot of hot water as a parent (and justly so).
|
The thing is, it’s okay with me if she is climbing and falls on a softer surface, gets dinged up a little bit, cries and then forgets about it. That kind of mistake doesn’t maim, and retains her sense of autonomy. The kind of mistake I won’t tolerate is one that she won’t forget about quickly; That kind of mistake demands her sense of autonomy take the hit.
|
As my child ages, perhaps she might strike up a friendship with someone involved in a cult. If this happens, I’ll need to revisit the dilemma of whether autonomy is more expedient to sacrifice than safety. I won’t however be able to turn my back on the dilemma itself, in homage to an inauthentic egalitarian ethic which applies only to men.
|
RE: “ I dread to consider the implications of what you’re saying; it might lead to controlling women’s moral and intellectual agency in the name of philogyny.”
|
Well, I’m not endorsing the old-school patriarchal model, where the man is the lord of his castle, in charge of the peon men, women, and children under his charge. I am however endorsing the new-school patriarchal model (modeled on Christ), where the male lays down his life if necessary, or (worse yet!) suffers criticism for protecting those who he has been called to protect.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Moot, surely even you can see that comparing the moral autonomy of a helpless and intellectually unformed infant with that of an adult woman is somewhat insulting. What you’re basically saying is that men have been given that protective role because they know better than women: in other words, that they are superior in understanding and in virtue in the same way that a good parent is more advanced than their child.
“My point was not that she was respecting her father’s memory, but rather that she looks up her father (even in death) as her protector. ”
Well, you could put either construction on your mother’s reluctance to convert. Her fear that her father would ‘roll over in his grave’ if she went over to Rome is hardly a continued affirmation of his protective authority over her. Rather, it might reflect the fact that she still respects his opinion, loves him and wouldn’t want to cause him offence in life or in death. One can respect and love a person without being under their authority!
As for the distinction you make between old-school lordship and New Testament patriarchy: the former was founded on the principle of the inferiority of female nature, and if you are advocating for a model of Christian gender relations based on the same principle, I don’t see how they need be different.
And finally: “Let’s take it to a level that both of us can relate to.” Thanks for bringing it down to my level – I appreciate that!
February 5th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
RE: “Moot, surely even you can see that comparing the moral autonomy of a helpless and intellectually unformed infant with that of an adult woman is somewhat insulting.”
The infant in this case is a child, and is not helpless and intellectually uninformed. “Surely even you” (a pejorative phrase if there ever was one, btw) can see that the adjectives you use to describe my child are somewhat insulting?
And you’ve patently missed the point. If you are a parent, then you understand the dilemma. I assert that the dilemma is the same for a man and the household he serves. If you are a parent, then you understand the dilemma; though you may reject my assertion.
RE: “Rather, it might reflect the fact that she still respects his opinion, loves him and wouldn’t want to cause him offence in life or in death. One can respect and love a person without being under their authority!”
Odd. You tend to think in terms of insult and offense. Actually, being somewhat of an authority on my own Mom, I can’t agree that she is afraid of either insulting or offending her father. I’d be open to entertaining other suggestions if you have them, however.
RE: “Thanks for bringing it down to my level – I appreciate that!”
Who said ‘down’? If you are a parent, then we would be on the same level. Thanks for putting words in my mouth – I appreciate that! ;)
February 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hi Moot. I apologise for my original bad-tempered and somewhat humourless reply to yours – it probably deserved the response you gave it.
However, I’m still deeply troubled by the parallel you draw between the parent-child/man-woman relationship. Culturally, we have a notion of childhood as a wholly separate condition in terms of legal, political, financial and professional responsibility. Where a woman has the full rights and agency of an adult, how specifically do you see the limitations on the full expression of that adulthood on the basis of sexual difference? Can a man forbid a woman to spend the money she has earned on things which he sees as harmful or unworthy? Does he have the God-given authority to curtail her freedom of movement if she shows a fondness for alcohol? Is he within his sphere of authority to monitor what she reads, or the sites she browses on the internet? When she proves successful in her professional life, can he set a ceiling on her ambitions to stop her transgressing the safety of her subject state? I can see how he might do all these things in the name of fulfilling his duty of ‘protection’. These are limits one might legitimately impose on a child. Not to mention the disturbing aspects of the application of your principle within marriage, I wonder how it would work in a situation where you have a female executive – but presumably such a person would not exist in an ideal Christian world?
Also, you didn’t answer my observation that you seem to be saying that men know what is right better than women, which makes them intellectual and moral superiors.
As for your mother, of course you’re better able to comment on her private motives than I am. But best of all, she can speak for herself, and I wonder what she would say if you suggested to her that she still saw her father as her final authority.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Part of the problem in this debate is that we make assumptions about what people believe behind what they are saying. Take for example Sarah’s sentence:
Also, you didn’t answer my observation that you seem to be saying that men know what is right better than women, which makes them intellectual and moral superiors.
This observation comes from a perspective that views male headship as implying that men are somehow more suited to the role of leadership than women. However, in all my experience of those who advocate male headship I have only once come across an example of someone who based their justification for male headship in this reasoning. The vast majority of those who support the notion of ultimate male headship do so from a basis of believing that men and women are intellectually and morally equal, yet despite this, God has called men to exercise headship.
How would such a model of headship work out? Well for example, take a large church staff team headed by a man. A bad model would be where the man believes that somehow he is superior to everybody else in the team and therefore makes decisions without reference to them, or that given the nature of his position he will receive special revelation to do the job. A good model would be where the man in charge elicits, and listens to carefully, contributions from all members of his team before coming to a final decision, a decision he makes not because he is intellectually or morally superior to his colleagues but simply because of the position he is in.
And considering this good model, we see that ultimately the argument for having a man as head is not sociological or psychodynamic (perceived intellect or morality) but theological.
Let’s look at some of the examples Sarah raises in her reply to Moot to see how this spins out:
Can a man forbid a woman to spend the money she has earned on things which he sees as harmful or unworthy?
I don’t know about your own marriages folks, but Gayle and I have a joint bank account. At the moment I am the main breadwinner, but before Reuben was born that was Gayle’s privilege (ah, those heady days of DINKS). The question then of “her money” never arises. It is all our money, regardless of who owns it.
So the real question is, should the husband have the final say over an item of expenditure? Well, if I can be personal for the moment, Gayle bought something yesterday at Asda that I thought was completely pointless and a waste of money, but did I enforce my husbandly rights and forbid her? Absolutely not, because I know that what I don’t get pleasure out of she does (in this case a bar of so called “nougat” which was really just a lump of sugar). If I was operating on the basis of what I thought was right I could have said “no”, but because I am instructed to love my wife as Christ loves the Church, I know that she will value some things entirely differently than I do (even down to a silly example of a candy bar). At the same time, I have coveted an even larger widescreen TV than we currently have for a long time, yet Gayle is absolutely adamant that we don’t need one. Do I go ahead and buy one anyway, seeing as it’s my money going into the bank account at the moment? Of course not, because I think my wife actually is right, despite my longings for the latest in technology.
Would you expect me as a conservative pastor to chastise a husband in my congregation who felt he could control his wife’s spending but at the same time buy whatever he wanted? Absolutely.
Does he have the God-given authority to curtail her freedom of movement if she shows a fondness for alcohol?
Are we implying here that the wife is a drunk or an alcoholic? What do you mean by curtailing freedom of movement? I have to be honest, if my wife (who is tee-total) suddenly started drinking I would remove all alcohol from the house, sit her down and tell her that she had a problem. I would expect her to do the same for me and this has far less to do with headship and more to do with mutual care.
Would you expect me as a conservative pastor to chastise a husband in my congregation who felt he could control his wife’s drinking but at the same time go out to the pub whenever he wanted? Absolutely.
Is he within his sphere of authority to monitor what she reads, or the sites she browses on the internet?
Let me tell you how it works in this house. Gayle can sit down at my PC at any time and go through my browsing history – she can do this because since I used to (a long time back) have a porn problem I want to make myself totally accountable for my web use. I can do the same at hers (though Gayle has never had an issue at looking at that kind of stuff). We use the same paypal account, have the same credit card statements and both have online access to all our bank accounts and share portfolio. I trust my wife because I love her and because we have made our lives as open to each other as possible. It would be misogynistic to insist that I could view her private activity without her being able to view mine, don’t you think?
Would you expect me as a conservative pastor to chastise a husband in my congregation who felt he could control his wife’s browsing but at the same time surf whereever he wanted without any accountability? Absolutely.
When she proves successful in her professional life, can he set a ceiling on her ambitions to stop her transgressing the safety of her subject state?
In my house I’m the one who wants to make sure that Gayle continues her professional career whilst she is the one wanting to stay at home looking after Gayle. If we could find appropriate child care then I’m sure at some point she would find a way of going back to work and probably rise well above me in terms of professional achievement (as she is well above me in formal academic achievement). Why would a husband who loves his wife as Christ loves the church want to cap his wife’s achievements? Does Christ want to cap the gifts and fruit of the church? Of course, if Gayle wanted to go back to work full time, leaving Reuben in nursery from 7 in the morning till after 6 at night then I would want to discuss with her whether that was best for Reuben. Would you expect me not to?
Would you expect me as a conservative pastor to chastise a husband in my congregation who felt he could control his wife’s career but at the same time work all the hours he wanted leaving her at home to bring up the kids and do all the domestics? Absolutely.
Do you see what I’m saying? If we assume misogyny in the hearts of husbands we get misogynistic interpretations. If we assume a husband loving his wife as Christ loves the church, we get completely opposite outcomes. It would be helpful therefore for the debate if those who reject the notion of male headship would recognise that those who do support it do so for theological reasons alone, not out of any basis of misogynistic assumptions,and that such theological reasons actually work often to the benefit of, not the detriment of a marriage.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
RE: “I apologise for my original bad-tempered and somewhat humourless reply to yours – it probably deserved the response you gave it.”
No apology necessary. The bad-tempered and humourless (your words) as well as the negative aspects of my response are irrelevant, anyhow.
RE: “However, I’m still deeply troubled by the parallel you draw between the parent-child/man-woman relationship.”
Unfortunate. I however remain untroubled by discussing one instance of a server / served , protector / protected, elder / lesser relationships, with another instance of them.
RE: “Also, you didn’t answer my observation that you seem to be saying that men know what is right better than women, which makes them intellectual and moral superiors.”
I’m not sure how to say this, so I’ll just say it:
1) Everything between the words, “you” and “that” is false. I have actually addressed your concerns. You took insult at the parallelism, and by focusing on the imagined slight, have missed the answer entirely.
2) Also, everything after the word “that” is false, and here again you are putting words in my mouth. The authority of my calling as parent does not hinge upon knowledge.
RE: “As for your mother, of course you’re better able to comment on her private motives than I am. But best of all, she can speak for herself, and I wonder what she would say if you suggested to her that she still saw her father as her final authority.”
Heh. Nice evasion. I assured you that her actions are not motivated by an unwillingness to offend, gave you an opportunity to postulate something better, and -now- it’s my responsibility to elicit an answer from her that is more suitable to your sensibilities?
As for the exercise of asking her, it’s completely pointless. The reason it’s pointless is that her decision is based on something that is completely out of synch with her (sometimes) egalitarian worldview. It’s instinctive. Asking her if she still falls under the headship of her father would be (given her worldview) akin to asking a man if he still beats his wife.
So again, if Mom is not afraid of her father literally rolling over in his grave, and she’s not worried about offending him, why does she cite a dead person as the basis for her decision?
Do tell. :)
February 7th, 2009 at 12:38 am
Hi Peter+,
RE: “It would be helpful therefore for the debate if those who reject the notion of male headship would recognise that those who do support it do so for theological reasons alone, not out of any basis of misogynistic assumptions…”
I disagree… slightly. I say this because I believe that men are naturally misogynistic. Adam was with Eve when she was tempted – rather than doing the difficult thing and dealing with the serpant, he used Eve as his guinea-pig. Abraham, fearing Pharoah, lied about his relationship to Sarah. Later, he capitulated to Sarah’s wish to impregnate Hagar, then threw up his hands when that situation blew up in everyone’s face. David allowed Tamar to remain desolate rather than throwing his arms around her and comforting her.
These aren’t strong men who hate women. These are weak men who hate them. In every instance, they omit their duties as head of household and the women suffer the consequences.
Frankly, I’d rather be like Adam, or Abraham, or David. Leave my family’s spiritual and financial health to chance, or better yet, to my wife. Who needs that grief anyhow? Best to turn on the TV, and tune out.
But someday, somehow, that mild-mannered misogyny would destroy them. My wife and daughter would be less ‘themselves’ with me letting things to chance all the time, than with me leaning over the plate for them once in a while.
My headship is modeled on Christ. For those who think that’s awful for the women in my life, they aren’t paying close attention to what Christ had to do for his bride, and subsequently did do.
Trust me.. Weak men are misogynists.
February 7th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“The bad-tempered and humourless (your words) as well as the negative aspects of my response are irrelevant, anyhow. ”
I can’t agree with this. For me the spirit in which debate is conducted is as important, if not more, than the content of that debate. For that reason, and you will read this as a victory for your argument, or intellectual cowardice, or something else (but that doesn’t trouble me greatly), I’m not going to post any more on this thread because I’m in danger of getting tangled in a sterile and ill-humoured discussion which I doubt will move either of us on very far. We have both made our points, and while both of us may feel that we have not been truly listened to, there is little to be gained from repeating ourselves endlessly (it certainly won’t interest other readers!).
Peter, thanks for your breakdown of how headship works in practice in your case. It is good to know that it has such benign implications at a personal level. But in my previous point I was not talking about the doctrine of headship in general: I was responding specifically and directly to Moot’s analogy between the parent’s responsibility to the child and the man’s responsibility to the woman.
February 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
RE: “For that reason, and you will read this as a victory for your argument, or intellectual cowardice, or something else..”
Well, it sure as heck isn’t a victory. So, it must be ’something else.’