It seems an age, but is actually little more than two weeks, since I wrote about Possibly another hopeful moment in the Church of England, and the Anglican Communion, referring to the Manchester report on how the Church of England might accept women as bishops. I welcomed this report not because of how it related to women bishops (or female bishops, as some prefer to say), but because of its
acceptance … of the principle that, in effect, a congregation or parish may choose to separate from the diocese in which it is geographically located and join [another] one
– what some have called the Swiss cheese model of dioceses with holes in them.
But my welcome for the Manchester report is not shared by the women who might become bishops. John Richardson and Ruth Gledhill both post a statement from WATCH (Women and the Church) which has, according to John, now been signed by nearly half of the ordained women in the Church of England. They write, among other things:
We believe that it should be possible for women to be consecrated as bishops, but not at any price. The price of legal “safeguards” for those opposed is simply too high, diminishing not just the women concerned, but the catholicity, integrity and mission of the episcopate and of the Church as a whole. We cannot countenance any proposal that would, once again, enshrine and formalise discrimination against women in legislation. …
The language of “protection” and “safeguard” is offensive to women, and we believe the existing disciplinary procedures are enough for women or men to be brought to account if they behave inappropriately. We would commend the good practice over the past 20 years of the 15 Anglican Provinces which have already opened the episcopate to women: none of these has passed discriminatory legislation. …
We long to see the consecration of women bishops in the Church of England, and believe it is right both in principle and in timing. But because we love the Church, we are not willing to assent to a further fracture in our communion and threat to our unity. If it is to be episcopacy for women qualified by legal arrangements to “protect” others from our oversight, then our answer, respectfully, is thank you, but no.
I understand and share the ordained women’s objections to proposals such as the Swiss cheese model which treat them as less than equals within the Church of England. It is appropriate to make some kind of accommodation for clergy and others who cannot accept the ministry of a woman bishop, but this should be done without formalised discrimination against women.
My welcome for the Swiss cheese model is restricted to the way in which it is a move away from the geographical principle of dioceses, a relic of the Roman empire which reflects the entirely anti-Christian mediaeval model of the bishop as a secular ruler.
I can also understand why the opponents of women bishops will find it hard to accept the WATCH women’s proposals. Their theological stance will not allow them to accept the nominal authority of a woman even if in practice they are ministered to only by a man sent by the woman.
Is there a way forward here? The issues are not only about women’s ministry, for very similar ones come up concerning acceptance of homosexuality and broader theological matters. In the long term the only kind of model which I can see working, for the Church of England and the Anglican Communion as a whole, is one in which congregations are under the authority of bishops on a non-geographical basis, in effect each deciding which of a number of bishops to relate to. If this situation is not formally accepted, it will surely happen anyway. Indeed it is already happening the United States and Canada, with the affiliation of many parishes to provinces outside North America. The Anglican Communion needs to accept this as a legitimate way ahead, or else to prepare for its own demise.
Read your bible. You either accept it as the God inspired and protected word of God, or you don’t. If you don’t then anything goes. There is no biblical support for Women in headship. The only reason that would sound objectionable is because the church has taken on the post-modernist world of egalitarianism. Does not the fact that such a view started in the world and has now crept into the church cause any concern?
Indeed, Dave, because there is no biblical support for the concept of headship which you seem to presuppose, except perhaps for Christ as head of the church. Yes, there are 1 Corinthians 11:3 and Ephesians 5:23 to consider, but the latter certainly and the former probably relate to roles in marriage and not in the church. Yes, there are Bible passages which have an impact on this question, and I have discussed some of them elsewhere. But it is quite possible and consistent for me and many others to accept the Bible as the inspired word of God and to accept women in church leadership.
Dave, these issues have been debated on my site:
http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.com
The Bible does not prohibit women in ministry. God’s word is indeed infallible but are translations and interpretations can of course be faulty because human-kind is faulty. Even passages like 1 Tim 2 11-15 do not prohibit women in ministry and yet are often used to do so by traditionalists. See my explanation of the said passage below. It has taken me 18 months of study on this topic to realise, thank God, he desn’t prohibit women in ministry at all.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission (written in the imperative ‘Let this woman learn’ Paul was very counter-culture).12 I do not permit a woman (that particular woman who is deceived, ie who isn’t learned enough because women weren’t given access to education then) to (Greek is didasko – to teach falsehoods) teach or to have authority over a man (the particular man, her husband, who is educated, aner Greek for husband so ‘a woman’ is his wife) she must be silent (on this occasion, in this church, not about women in general or for all time). 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve (just like in Paul’s day the men were educated, the women weren’t, Paul thought they should be). 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (because she hadn’t had the same access to God’s instruction as Adam. 15 But she (3rd person singular; because of the grammar this has to be the woman he is referencing in 11) will be (future tense so referring to the particular woman not Eve who is dead) saved (sozo -spiritual salvation – saved) (It cannot be taken to indicate a reference to plural women (as mistranslated in the NASB, NIV) since “she shall be saved” is a correct translation of the future tense, passive voice, 3rd person singular form of the verb sozo (sothesetai). through childbearing (noun teknogonia: the childbearing that is the birth of Jesus)—if they (the man and the woman) continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
This stands for churches today only in the sense that people of both genders should not be allowed to teach false doctrine; anyone who wishes to teach others about God’s word must humbly learn it for themselves first.
HRHT, thanks for this good summary.
Can I also recommend that Dave reads ‘Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes’ by Kenneth E Bailey. He is quite a scholar and explains context very lucidly. He really has us understand just how counter-culture Jesus was whilst incarnate. He looks at the inclusion of the four women in the geneological line to Christ in Matthew; how Luke balanced his gospel account between the two genders and just how important women were in the early church and as the first followers of Christ.
God Bless. My name is Rachel by the way. I wrote under the pseudonym HRHT to originally protect my identity. My reading of the ministry of women does not sit well in the Conservative, traditional parish where I live. But all know it’s me now so no need to be HRHT anymore.
Reform have created a booklet which they have sent to all members of General Synod as we head towards Lambeth. In it they claim the following points which I believe should be, not so much challenged, challenged conjures up language of aggression, but answered. The church of England has decided to ordain women and we will see women bishops, no doubt.
The Church of England is not behaving in ways contrary to God and Scripture, it’s just that Reform have understood scripture in a ‘different’ way to the majority.
The following are the points they make and I want to see if between us we can make clear and concise points refuting their claims. I have as yet no formal theological training just a lot of passion and interest. I have worked very hard this year on interpreting 1 Tim 2 11-15 with lots of help from Cheryl Chatz at Strivetoenter.com. My own blog ‘Revisingreform’ has helped me to work through some issues. Let’s not have ourselves painted with such a brush – it tarnishes. I believe in the inerrancy of scripture and believe in God’s word and that does not mean I can not be in support of women in the episcopate.
Reform claim objections to Women being Bishops in the Church of England because
When he [Paul] says that ‘the head of the woman is man’ (1 Cor 11:3) his teaching is based on the nature of God himself. When he says ‘For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church’ (Eph 5:23) he is presupposing a lasting order in the relationship between husband and wife. When he says ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man’ (1 Tim 2:12) he founds his argument on the order of creation in Genesis 2.
Gen 2:18 … speaks of God’s purpose to make a ‘helper suitable for him’ (Adam). This shows that in creating Eve the intention is that she join with Adam in his task of ruling creation under God. However the expression ‘suitable for him’ tells us that this is to be done through complementarity rather than identity or inter-changeability.
Headship is a convenient shorthand for a biblical principle about order and leadership. …Various words in the Bible are used to express aspects of this headship – authority, submission and so on.
In addressing the issue of order the Bible has a particular focus on leadership in human families and in congregations of God’s people (called the ‘household of God’ in 1 Tim 3:15). The Scriptures teach that this leadership should be male. This focus could be because such relationships are so basic to human society and therefore key to its wider well being.
See revisingreform on 1 Tim 2 11-15 and Strivetoenter.com.
Thanks, Rachel. I am familiar with Cheryl and have debated with her in the past. I accept most of what she teaches. Like you I can recommend her blog.
I am sure that every member of General Synod is aware of the kinds of arguments which Reform is making. And only a small proportion of them, not enough to win any vote, accept these arguments. In fact General Synod has already accepted the principle of women bishops, and is now debating only how to bring this about. If the Reform minority does not accept the majority decision, they should now keep quiet, or leave.
Well, as I reported earlier today, it now seems that they will not leave, but will set up their parallel organisation nominally within the Church of England. We will see what this actually means in practice.