women, church and Rome in the Guardian
I have a piece in the Guardian's Comment is Free section
The question of the week is about what the impact will be of the Pope's invitation to Anglican priests to come under the umbrella of Rome, an invitation largely offered, it seems, in response to priests who don't like women or gay people doing anything more than sit in a pew in CHurch.
I took the line that it's one thing to move somewhere just because you feel more at home there, but if your move is motivated by anger, you'll probably just take your discontent and unresolved attitudes with you.
I see that Church Mouse also has a piece in there.
53 Responses to “women, church and Rome in the Guardian”
Comments
Reply
-
author musician theologian
Maggi has kept a blog since September 2003, writing about theology and faith, the arts and literature, and a little about life and random nonsense...
In an increasingly secularised society few people have a good working knowledge of the Bible. Yet a great deal of our culture is built on stories or ideas that come from the Bible. Literature, art, music, language and even the fabric of our society - such as our justice system - are built on Christian concepts and biblical references. The Writing on the Wall provides a fascinating introduction to the Bible's best-known, and most influential, stories. Each chapter gives some background to the text of the Bible, and shows how the stories have become enmeshed in Western culture. Adam and Eve, the ten plagues of Egypt, The Prodigal Son and Mary Magdalene all feature - along with how the Bible has influenced everyone from Shakespeare to Monty Python, and Caravaggio to Banksy. 
Giving It Up explores the Lenten idea of 'giving up', taking it beyond the traditional idea of simply abstaining from something, and suggesting instead that what we need to give up is our existing ideas about God. With a daily readings for each day of Lent, from Ash Wednesday to Easter Sunday, it follows the heroes of the Bible who had to give up their own too-small ideas about God.
This is Maggi’s bestselling book of daily readings for each day of Advent, Christmas and Epiphany. Advent is the beginning of the Church year, and marks the anticipation of the coming Messiah. These readings explore how beginnings and endings in our own lives are illuminated by the different Gospel narratives of Christ's coming.
-
Search
-
-
For every one thing that attracts me to the Church, there seem to be two that I find revolting.
Quite so. I think you’d find a majority of the men coming as well.
Maggi,
Well said. I find it completely wrong that the Synod decision can be downgraded by a committee in the small print.
Women ARE equal and full members of the Church, and must be able to fulfill the call to Ordained Ministry or Episcopal Ministry, when it comes.
Any other way would be a dilution of their role, and would be an insult to each one, who faithfully fulfills their call.
The Church is treading on dangerous ground with this move – the Will of the Synod will need to be fulfilled, or it is likely that Secular legislation might need to step in.
True Equality in the Sight of God is what is needed.
The problem with this post is that it shows no understanding of those Christians who could not accept the episcopal, or congregational, oversight of a woman or who (like CS Lewis!) would not accept the sacramental ministry of a woman. It is easy to caricature people as ‘bullies’, especially when you’re jolly cross. What Rowan Williams, and bishops like Pete Broadbent, have done, is to treat the views of those with whom they disagree with respect to the fact they arise out of theological and ecclesiological understandings. That is surely worth the candle.
John, I am not “jolly cross” as you put it (that makes it just sound like a toddler tantrum). I’m sad and disappointed and angry, but I’m not in a mindless rage. I’ve been considering this situation, patiently and carefully, ever since I first felt called into ministry nearly forty years ago.
I certainly do understand, all too well, what it is like to have your theological and sacramental understanding ignored, threatened or treated as unimportant. That is precisely what women have been tolerating in the Church, all of my life and for a long time before that.
Accommodation of difference is very much woven into the Anglican tradition, and something I am reluctiant ever to let go of. But it’s no good having a selective accommodation. And this re-visiting of an agreement, yet again, is a way of saying that once again it is women who must accommodate, and not have their lives and vocations considered.
I truly wish I could say you were wrong, Maggi, for I love our church. But you may very well be right. Certainly this is a treacherous, slippery-looking move, unworthy of a people whose calling is to follow our Lord regardless of the cost to our own reputation. A great deal of prayer, as well as a great deal of speaking the truth, seems to be required.
The Baptist church in the UK decided in the 1920’s that women could be ordained but there are still churches that won’t accept a woman minister. Some of us think it is time for the Baptist Union to tell churches you either accept all ordained Baptist ministers or you get out. For some reason upsetting those who object to women in ministry (because they don’t know how to read the Bible properly) is more important than upsetting the women who have been called by God to be His ministers.
If we are still in this position after nearly 80 years I dread to think how long the Anglican church will take to stop tearing itself apart over an issue that is man made and not of God.
If you think I sound angry that is because I am! Angry for women called by God and snubbed by the church (small ‘c’ intentional.)
We will keep having democratic elections until you lot get the right answer.
In other news, there’s a new scheme relating flogging and improved morale.
In the wake of the post about encouraging women’s vocations in spite of bullying I was going to ask Maggi/anyone if they could quantify this on a scale of ‘one’ to ‘investment banking’ – I guess now I don’t need to.
Thank you for naming this action (of those who forced the REvision Committee to try to change the mind of synod) as bullying. Naming it is really important. Women and those many men who want women to be accepted as equal with men in the church without lots of fuss and rules, are being subjected to the sort of behaviou which in other contexts would be called bullying: in particular, re-writing the narrative so that the women and those who support full inclusion, become the oppressors,
So, synod was “ungenerous” when it passed legislation last summer that would have allowed women to become bishops and “only” asked them to follow a centrally decided code of practice. This was a very big ask.
Those who think they would not be able to accept a woman as bishop and so want legislation to be able to avoid this will be “forced out of the church” if this legislation is not passed, when what they mean is that they would decide to leave. And so on and so on….but so many bishops swallow this false narrative becaue it is being told them by their peers and friends and they don’t want to hurt them and find it hard to deal with their emotions.
And it was women who were told 30 years ago not to use emotional arguments in this contoversy but to do the theology……
I’m not sure about walking out of church – not sure where I would go – but something might snap one day.
I think in the minds of these men, it is not women bishops who are tainted, it is all women. Menstruation and pregnancy are so disgusting that women should be kept in a separate compartment of life.
I really feel for all of you who are caught up in this issue. I’ve equally had experience of discrimination as a women leader in the church although not from the Anglican perspective. The tragedy here is that most churches have moved passed this point and survived in spite of the scaremongering – because that is surely what this is – it has nothing to do with what the Bible or history actually teaches on this issue. It is blind, old fashioned predjudice and power politics. The surprise of it is that to outsiders it seems so “old hat” to still be having this debate. Having said this, there is such potential for huge hurt all around – I’m really praying for all of you.
courage is a rare thing among institutional leaders – forging a muddled middle ground often can create a false equivalence
i love the idea of a woman’s movement out(or beyond) – take a season like ordinary time and just worship apart
Just pondering last night on the impact of all women staying at home on a particular given Sunday (as obviously this is where some men would prefer women to be) as a peaceful protest! Every church, restaurant, bar, supermarket with women nowhere to be seen. How about it? Stay at home Sunday!
Maggi, I was struck when I read this how well your anger is expressed . It comes across very forcefully when you read the piece, and yet it is contained. Your ‘patience and care’ are equally clear.
John Richardson’s heavily patronising tone rather gives the game away. Women show ‘no understanding’. Women get ‘jolly cross’. And invoking Father C.S. Lewis, of course, conclusively shuts down the argument.
thank you, John Duncan, and Sally, and all the other commenters. I think Sally’s idea of stay-at-home Sunday is brilliant.
Maggi et al, I do read a lot of anger in this column, which to my mind is leading to suggestions which, to put it as gently as I can, seem odd – like women staying away from church to make some kind of point (to whom?).
The truth is, there are others who feel just as ’sad and/or angry’ at what they see happening to the church as a result of decisions in this area. For myself, I would point to the demonstrable liberalizing of the Church of England, since its women ministers are, according to a survey conducted several years ago, less conservative theologically (eg on issue like the virgin birth of Jesus from Mary) than the men.
I do also find myself asking why someone who feels called by God to ‘presbyteral’ ministry doesn’t just join a denomination where this is possible. Why hang on in the Church of England when, as one correspondent has said, you could join the Baptists? Or, indeed, go freelance? Is the CofE the ‘true church’?
My own view is that a ‘free vote’ might be best, where congregations that want a woman bishop could ‘opt in’ for one, and where (also) congregations and dioceses were able to elect their own clergy and bishops rather than have them imposed ‘from above’, as is the present arrangement which has produced our present crop of senior managers.
i’m not anglican, but a bit of me died inside when i read that report… you are right: enough.
JohnR, thanks for your comment. I can see that you don’t understand, by your interpretation of the call of women priests as “presbyters”. My call, and that of countless other women, is not to be a Baptist minister, or a leader, but a priest. It is a sacramental call. And, as the church made abundantly clear to me during the process of discernment (and I thoroughly believe), the call to the priesthood is not received directly from God to an individual, but the priest is equally called by the Church.
The bind that we find ourselves in is that, with a catholic and sacramental and theologically reasoned sense of call, which has been recognised and endorsed by the Church of England, we are now concurrently called by the Church and being told that we are NOT called.
I make no apology for being angry. I grew up learning that women are not allowed to be angry, but over decades of following Jesus and reading the scriptures, I have learned that there is in fact a divine call to allow oneself to be angry when injustice calls for it. The scriptures command us to “Be angry (but sin not)” – hence anger needs to be controlled and aimed in the right direction, but not suppressed or denied.
I’m well aware that there are men (and some women) with a particular view of male-only representation who also feel sad and/or angry. But whenever this is duscussed, it is always assumed that the women must be the ones who make the sacrifice of accommodation. That is partly the point in this post.
Maggi, an interesting series of comments! ‘Presbyter’ is, of course, one of the terms by which I would happily refer to myself – and has an Anglican pedigree. Richard Hooker uses it, for example, in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.
One of the reasons for using it occasionally is to remind ourselves that our Anglican ‘priestly’ ministry is sacramental but not sacerdotal, and -as I’m sure you’re aware and will agree -it is a ministry of the word and sacrament, not (only, or even chiefly or uniquely) a ’sacramental ministry’, insofar as the sacraments do not stand separately from the word.
Another reason for using ‘presbyter’, however, is to point to the biblical aspects of ‘congregational seniority’ which is also part of the role. The use of something nearer the NT word is helpful in this regard, although technically the English ‘priest’ derives, via ‘preost’ precisely from ‘presbyteros’ (not ‘hierus’). I’m sorry to get technical, but that is the case.
The Anglican understanding of ‘priesthood’ is brilliantly summed up in the the Ordinal. Here it is very ‘person centred’, and understanding this, and the ‘eldership’ factor can help some of us see our ‘laity’ as ‘presbyteral’, even when they are not ordained.
But like I said, there are reasons why some of us who take a different view to your own might be angry or sad at what we see happening to our denomination, and we wonder, sometimes, whether we are seen as truly brothers (and sisters) in Christ – especially when, as repeatedly happens in these online conversations – we are told that the ‘exit’ from the Church is wide open for us and we should take the hint and go!
I wonder, Maggi, if I might ask a question – what do you think of ‘lay celebration’ of the eucharist? The Anglo-Catholic would see it as simply a contradiction in terms. The ‘middle of the road’ Anglican would, I suspect, see it as ‘not quite right’ in a not-quite-coherent sense. The more informed Anglican would, I think, recognize it as a wrongful breach of Anglican order, contrary to Articles 23 and 34, and therefore improper and irregular, but not (bearing in mind Article 26) invalid.
I’m asking because I’d like to know where you might see yourself on the spectrum of understanding the ministry of word and sacrament and the nature of being a Christian and a ‘priest’ (sorry, I have to use those inverted commas because there are so many understandings of that word). Obviously you don’t have to say!
JohnR, I’m as well acquainted with the etymology as you are, although you seem to contradict yourself in the flow of this conversation.
I appreciate that it would be sad indeed if people felt they were forced to leave – but that’s precisely what this discussion is all about. I would never ask anyone to leave the church if they didn’t want to, although earlier today you suggested that the simplest solution for me would be to give up sacramental ideas and go and join the Baptists. Why is it OK to force an impasse on women priests, but not on men?
John, some clarification, please…
You say in your blog entry entitled “How feminism ruins everything” that “There is a weary predictability about the introduction (dare one say ‘intrusion’) of a female character into what is an otherwise male-dominated environment.”
I’m intrigued, are you talking about the literary genre only (which was the context of the article), or the episcopy as well?
John Richardson said: “Here it is very ‘person centred’, and understanding this, and the ‘eldership’ factor can help some of us see our ‘laity’ as ‘presbyteral’, even when they are not ordained.” Ok. But, Maggi is in fact an ordained Anglican priest.
I have yet to hear a satisfying answer from anyone on this issue as to why it is the ordination of women to the priesthood is acceptbale, but the ordination of women to the episcopacy is outlandishly unacceptable….I understand the difference between presbyter or priest and bishop, but no one has as yet actually produced sufficient reason — certainly not a well-reasoned, thoughtful exegetical account of women in Scriptures! — for making this difference divisive with respect to women. In other words, answer me this: In what sense is this proscription anything other than ideological?
In the peace of Christ,
dave
And while I recognize the very difficult issue of ecclesial unity that is at stake in this issue, that does not sidestep the ideology that drives this proscription barring solid exegetical defense. Regardless, given that the solid exegetical defense can reasonably give way to various equally valid interpretations (though not ALL equally valid), it seems we have failed to truly understand in this instance what ecclesial unity truly *means.* It is peace and unity in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is dispossession of all that divides us, finding that we are all one not by our own power but only in Christ Jesus our Lord. I think that has radical implications for the present debate.
Peace,
dave
Lay presidency, John? Not in my book, other than in rare and exceptional circumstances. For me the whole point of being ordained is in order to preside over the sacraments. As a priest I preside over my community’s Eucharist, and pronounce absolution and blessing both in public services and in the sacrament of reconciliation. To ordain someone for any other reason seems to at best nothing much more than a managerial validation, which may have its value, but it’s not “priestly” or sacramental. And at worst it can turn holy orders into an ontological superiority, an idea that I abhor: I understand myself ordained to serve. (And certainly not to “taint” the church…).
As for your suggestion that I could be a “freelance” priest, that is the most un-Anglican (and extra biblical) idea. Anglican ecclesiology very specifically refuses to ordain someone in the abstract – you can only be ordained into the service of a community, whether that’s parish, cathedral, or peculiar (although it occurs to me that the closest you can get to having a “freelance” role is something akin to a new testament Apostle, AKA Bishop…)
Maggi, my early comment was based on the principle that if God is truly calling someone to something that their denomination won’t allow then the obvious way is to find a context in which it is allowed. A mate of mine faced many obstacles in his route to be ordained as an Anglican priest. He is now running an enormous ministry and vital in another (and very tough) part of the globe – our loss, their gain. If one agrees to stay on in a church which does not allow one to fulfil what one believes is one’s calling from God, well so be it, though it seems a little paradoxical to me.
Alastair, the ‘ruins everything’ was a reference to the tendency to want ‘everything’ -even historical literary works -to be conformed to a particular world-view.
Dave, the issue about different ‘ordinations’ is one of role. Until recently (see the National Evangelical Anglican Congress 1977 Statement) evangelicals held a position whereby women could, conceivably, be ordained as priests but where overall leadership would be male. This was taken pretty much for granted at the time as the appropriate lesson from the Bible. Some, including me, would still hold essentially to that view, so that the issue is not about ’sacramental’ ministry (I really don’t mind who does that) as congregational leadership. A bishop, however, is inevitably the overall ‘leader of leaders’ and some of us have a problem with that. Others may disagree, but that, at least, is the position.
All I would want to say is this is not about ‘bullying’. It would actually be much easier for me to say “Let women be bishops” – less stress, less hassle, less unpopularity in the church and the world. I just can’t agree with it. That is not a plea for sympathy – just for proper understanding of where we’re coming from.
I wonder sometimes if there is a tendency in those of us who have been pastorally trained to take an over-pastoral approach to decision making? Eg: party A says that it is wrong to murder and party B says it is right to murder. The pastorally trained leader says ‘I can see some merits in both, but to be pastorally sensitive, let us just murder x people this year, x next year and the review it..’
I think I’m being tongue in cheek there (I confuse myself sometimes).
Strikes me (from outside the Anglican Communion) that if a decision has been made with careful thought, attention to scripture, listening, prayer etc that it should be implemented. There are times when this has happened when those who oppose this decision have to re-examine themselves and work out whether to change or to leave.
It may well be the most ‘pastorally sensitive’ thing from a leadership to say ‘Go then, we wish you well’ and not to keep on trying to hold things together…
This news is so disappointing, speaking as an ordained man who believes that women should be able to serve as bishops, but who is called to the Church of England and does not feel free to walk away.
At the ‘Council of Jerusalem’ the early church came up with a compromise position that created two tracks: for Jewish believers and Gentile believers. It didn’t take Paul long to expose the flaws of such a position: it leads to inconsistency in practice (see Peter at Antioch), but, moreover, is inconsistent with a theology of God, in Jesus, having broken down the dividing barriers between Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free…
But Paul concludes that it is those who are more established, who consider themselves to be mature, who must take the big hit in the changes that are necessary in order to remain faithful to the new thing God is doing. It’s not as if God hadn’t revealed his heart towards the gentiles in the Hebrew scriptures…Likewise, it’s not as if God hasn’t revealed his heart through the record of female leaders in the early church…
If those who are unwilling to acknowledge women bishops see themselves as the established inheritors of the history of what God has done in and through his people, then, in my opinion, it is they who need to make the big changes, and those who can point to God’s call on women to serve as bishops as well as priests and deacons who need to be asked to make the absolutely minimum necessary compromises.
Sadly, I don’t see any such maturity from those who believe that bishops must be circumcised and follow the Law in order to fulfil righteousness…
Maggi, your understanding of priesthood and mine are a long, long way apart, and that may explain some of your anger and my bafflement!
I don’t, however, think your understanding is in the tradition of Anglicanism seen through the Reformation. Rather, it sits in the same category – interestingly – as my (anti-WO) Anglo-Catholic friends.
The Anglicanism of the Reformers and the Prayer Book saw itself as reforming the church, not replacing it. Nevertheless they would not have understood the idea that “the whole point of being ordained is in order to preside over the sacraments.”
Nor does Article 23, nor does the Ordinal. The former sets out, I think, a concise Anglican understanding of ordination: “It is not lawful for any man [person] to take upon him the office of public preaching or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men [people] who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.” It is nothing more, nor of course less, than this – a lawful calling and sending to the public ministry of preaching and ministering the sacraments.
I cannot help a wry smile at the thought that you regard yourself as, in a sense, the inheritor of the true Anglican mantle. There will, of course, be problems where views of what should be our starting point for discussion differ so widely!
The Church is dying out in many parts of this country because it is simply out of touch with the communities it is called to serve. Far from women tainting the Church, the Church is impoverished without the many gifts, varied and wonderful gifts, which women can bring to it. Over half of all ordinands are now women. Without women’s ministry the Church of England will fade and die, irrelevant and unnoticed.
Maggi, just out of interest: What is the relation between the Church of England and the holy catholic (and apostolic) Church of the Creeds and (unless they are the same) which one is calling to priesthood? (Asking because from my Protestant point of view on denominational churches as human organisations it would be rather hard to image how they can be involved in vocation.)
And talking about human organisations: I can accept that there are different points of view on the role of women in the church, but the way this conflict is dealt with is increasingly making it a matter of general justice and a test for church leadership. Is the CofE taking its own structures any serious? I would soo love to believe that Christian communities are not the places for legitimate decisions being overruled by minorities with loud voices. But years of fighting for civilised ways of dealing with conflicts in various church committees (Protestant ones, no CofE-bashing here) have taught me otherwise. I still see it as a defeat, but sometimes shouting louder was the only thing that worked.
So, calling to the Anglicans out there: By all means, be angry!
John, I never suggested that Anglican women should join the Baptist church in order to become priests; I just pointed out that we are still having problems after 80 years. I would never suggest such a move as we have completely different views on priesthood. We believe in the priesthood of all believers so have no problem with any church member administering communion but this is not compatible with the Anglican doctrine of priesthood.
Ordination has been a controversial subject in the Baptist church for that very reason – Spurgeon was opposed to ordination but it seems to have become accepted these days by putting it in the context of Acts 13 where Saul and Barnabas where set aside for a special work.
John refers to a survey a few years back which he says shiowed female clergy to be more ‘liberal’ than male ones. Well after over 10 years of training clergy I cannot see how the survey got its results. The women and men I have trained (in Durham and now in East Anglia) seem about the same theologically. That is some are more liberal than others, but it does not fall out on gender lines.
Anecdotally, the (probably) most liberal person I have trained was a man (though he was not Anglican) and I once taught two women who said that theologically they would have alligned themselves with Oak Hill college (their words, not mine) but trained elsewhere as they were women.
(And lest an Oak Hill person complain – I know Oak Hill happily trains women ordinands….)
I can only offer a view from outside the church, looking in, not a technical view of what priesthood is about. My first thought is of ageing congregations, and my second is of outdated attitudes. My third is of seventy-odd percent of the population which identify as Christian, the majority of which don’t go to church. It is clearly not obvious to them that they are missing out. Could there be a link? I can’t pretend to fully appreciate the theological niceties, and I think many people won’t care about that; what they see is old-fashionedness. I think that a church full of old people with outdated attitudes is seriously time-limited. When all the old men have died, no-one can hear the gospel. That sounds like a bad idea to me.
I’ve really had to persevere, in spite of many setbacks, and much that I found seriously off-putting, to get anywhere near becoming a Christian (again?). This suggests to me that the church can bring people back, and bring people in, with care and thought and love. Not by slamming doors in their faces. And maybe part of bringing them back is to move boldly into the same century everyone else is living in. Just a thought.
I regard my own orders as a priest as exactly the same as yours, maggi. And I know that people may have serious theological objections to women being bishops, but if they don’t want to belong to a Church which ordains women … well sorry, that’s what the Church of England does, and we have bishops in the Anglican Communion who are women.
C S Lewis is often quoted on this issue, as someone who would reject the ministry of women priests. People would do well to remember that he was also a strong opponent of the remarriage of divorcees, until he wanted to do it himself. Then he changed his mind. Who is to say what he would have thought in today’s climate, especially if his own life had been touched by the issue. The glory of Lewis is that he could change his mind. The sadness about Lewis is that he needed HIS OWN LIFE to be touched in order to change his mind.
I would like to nominate Sunday 31 January 2010 as ‘Stay Away Sunday’ in remembrance of “Anna, a prophetess, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem.”
John,
You mostly ignored my question. That is: if the difference between the “roles” of ordination (between deacons, priests, and bishops) means that the bishop is “the leader of leaders,” *on what basis* are you claiming that women are “unfit” for such role? I will restate my question here yet again, because your mere restatement of your own position seems to indicate the answer, and I would like to see if you have any other reply: *In what way is this not merely grounded ideologically?* I’m afraid that what is at stake here is that, as Andrew was getting at above, this persistent claim that women are unfit for this role cannot be forcefully argued from solid exegesis of Scripture…in fact, to dig in one’s heels into that claim is more characteristic of those divisions characteristic of what Paul calls “the old age,” those divisions destroyed by the cross of Christ that renders the *division* “male and female” powerless, so that while difference remains, it is not a difference that divides us any longer. *That* is what characterizes “the new age” according to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I’m not sure how you’ve offered a coherent response that can actually get at this though. Forgive me if I seem hardline here, but I am truly trying to understand what you are saying, especially that *what* you are saying amounts to something I can only see thus far as truly ideological, and thus truly antithetical to the gospel. Again, I say this in peace and with a view to charity.
Peace,
dave
Just a couple of clarifications if I may.
Hugh, I wasn’t suggesting Maggi join the Baptists “to become a priest” but that someone who felt God calling them to a task would surely find an outlet for that calling. However, I think what Maggi refers to is ‘being a priest’ in a way that, as she understands it, only a church like the Church of England could supply.
I would have to say, however, it is not just Baptists who have problems with the Anglican view of priesthood – Anglicans do as well.
Charles, the findings to which I referred about women and liberalism come from a survey commissioned by Cost of Conscience but carried out by the Christian Research Association. More can be found on this at http://www.trushare.com/SURVEY/New%20Survey%20Page%20241003.htm, with a number of related links.
It seems to me that women have a very good way to stop this nonsense. Those many, many lay women who shore up the church should withhold the time , talents and money which they give to the church until the men who think they run things take notice…
It shouldn’t take long for them to realise who really does the work, and who ultimately has the most power to change things…
John R, I think you are sliding around in this conversation: among your suggestions you’ve said my view of priesthood isn’t Anglican (when in fact it is), that I might join the Baptists, and that I didn’t understand those who felt uncomfortable with their idea of the view of priesthood, and that I didn’t get the reformation… but rather than debate each issue you’ve changed the subject.
My understanding of priesthood is central anglican, and very much in line with Lesslie Newbigin’s missional ecclesiology. But I’m glad it’s the case that Anglicanism embraces some variety in its theology and ecclesiology, and is not nearly as uniform as you would like to believe.
Dear John R – “Anglicans have a problem with the Anglican view of priesthood” – ??? seems to me, my friend, that it’s you, and not me, who needs to go and join the Baptists…
I’m with Dave on being confused about why its OK to have women priests but not OK to have women bishops. I never thought I would have to bring back this old argument from pre women’s ordination days but why aren’t all bishops Jewish? We seem to have made gender the battleground but why not ethnicity – how careless of the Lord to pick only Jewish men as his apostles. As soon as the gentiles are in I can’t see how women can be kept out. And what an odd and shameful debate to be having in the 3rd millenium. Maranatha – how much longer Lord?
I think that men who oppose women’s ministry have as much of a problem with who they are as men as they do with women. The inability to see that women are also truly called and used by God shows to me a lack of humility and grace with respect to one’s own ministry and humanity.
What a complete and utter waste of time. What on earth do you think you’re achieving by all this chit chat? I took part in the first gay march through London. It wasn’t a pleasant experience but next year we returned and marched again. And the following year, we marched again – until people realised that we weren’t going to go away. I was also a founder member of the Gay Christian Movement. I would never have believed that after all these years the position of gays in the Church would be far worse than it was then, and that the position of women is little better.
Cut the chat, folks – and DO something.
Dear Terence, Do you mean that your marching and campaigning was a waste of time? (I’m very sure that you talked about what you were wanting to achieve while you were working out what you should do next.) I’m not sure what you mean by “do something” – what is it you think we should do?
Maggi,
Well you have provoked a good discussion, which has caused some who disagree with your justified anger and disappointment with this decision to come out fighting.
I wonder if they need a reality check? Nobody is being asked to leave the CofE, they are just being asked to give the same status to Women in Ordained Ministry, whether Deacon, Priest or Bishop that exists for men.
Anything short of the recognition of full and equal status as Bishops for male and female is not acceptable and will just allow the credibility of the Church to continue to be denigrated by those whose sole business is to deny religion of any sort.
I think Sue makes an excellent point that shouldn’t go unheard here: ordaining women to the episcopacy sort of “half-way” not only *institutionalizes* the place of women in a role that is already subordinate (in a negative way), thereby not offering a solution to the sort of sexism that is already now present, but in fact reinforcing it; but, it also undermines the very office of bishop! I mean there is a huge irony here, as a friend of mine told me about this issue recently, that men in the church are so concerned about the office of the bishop that they are willing to *not* take it seriously, to diminish it in certain cases. Do they not realize, though, that the very office itself would be diminished?!
Which is to say, while it might seem to some (men) that this would be a step forward, I cannot see how it would be. If ordination of women to the episcopacy is something we’re *serious* about, then let’s be serious about it! I think there are two alternative options that Archbishop Williams and others must consider here if the Anglican Communion and the Church of England in particular wishes to actually take this issue seriously: 1. Women should be vested with full responsibility and authority of bishop without the faux (merely ideological) oversight of “super bishops” (or the parish congregation option for super bishops); or 2. Serious talks should continue toward that end.
Again, I understand the very difficult place that ++Williams is in here, and I respect that; but unity is not a “compromise” between warring parties. It is peaceful charity. That is neither something to be deferred, nor something to cheapen.
In the peace of Christ,
dave (the previous comment was mine also)
Hey John Richardson!
The 16th century called – it wants you back.