Maltby, Women Bishops and the Twisting of Words
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.
Sound,
I have absolutely no problem receiving bread and wine from my female colleagues when they have presided in church.
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.     Â
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.
I actually see it as lacking any integrity at all – but that’s not my problem brother!
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.Â
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.
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.
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….
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.Â
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:Â Â Â “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.    Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
Anyway, so glad you remember the liturgical dance sketch with fondness! They were happy days. Peace,
Sarah.
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.
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).
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.
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?Â
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.
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.
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.
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.Â
Â
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cbmw/rbmw/chapter2.html
Â
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.au/mmstore/equipdbdmp3 .. puts the New Testament passages into perspective IMHO.
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.org.uk/news/2006/20060721kasper.cfm?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.
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.Â
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…..        Â
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.
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.
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.
Â
“…far from there being a teaching that has been “from the beginning constantly preserved and appliedâ€, 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 appliedâ€: 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?
Â
Â
in friendship, Blair
Â
Blair,
“…far from there being a teaching that has been “from the beginning constantly preserved and appliedâ€, 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.”
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?