I hesitate to write this, and I told myself that I would not step into this debate on this particular platform. I know that I am at risk of alienating dear friends as I write this, and that the stakes are high on both sides. I would very, very much appreciate it if you would extend grace to me, and be gentle with me in comments.
I went on my Twitter feed this morning, and within five minutes I was so sickened by the nature of the tweets on women bishops that I had to tear myself away.
I am an egalitarian because when I look at the varied and complex passages on women in ministry in the Bible, I am persuaded that the Bible says that it is good for women to teach the Bible and lead churches. But the particular passages are confusing and seemingly contradictory – sometimes women are involved in leadership (for example Priscilla, Junia, Euodia and Syntiche, Phoebe), and sometimes they are told not to teach (in 2 Timothy). It is the job of the Bible student to work out which is the rule, and which is the exception. Though I disagree with those who are complementarian, I can see why they reached their position and I respect them for their desire to be submissive to God’s word.
I ache for the women who have been sidelined for so long, who have been treated as inferior, who have felt like they have had to fight for their place and been excluded and treated with a lack of respect. I know this deeply and personally, and in my ministry there are many times when I felt the crushing wounds from people who said that I was sinful for wanting to teach the Bible. I am glad to be part of the Church of England where women are able to serve alongside men, and I think that it is a good thing that there will be women bishops.
But I do not wish to demonise those who, in good conscience, have looked at the same complex Bible passages as me and come to a different conclusion. It is simply not true to say that complementarian is the same as misogynist. Most complementarians do not view women as inferior, whatever the letter in today’s Independent may claim.
You can feel sexism, you can smell it as soon as it occurs, and it is not necessarily anything to do with theology (although that can come into play). It is the dismissive looking past you, the patronising smile, the thinly disguised surprise that you are here at all, shocked at your audacity to play with the Big Boys. It is horrible, and I have encountered it from both egalitarians and complementarians. Equally, I have had people on both sides of the debate who have affirmed me and my ministry and leadership, and I feel a special gratitude to those who have done so even while disagreeing with me theologically.
I would like there to be women bishops. But as it stands, this measure would effectively force out those who cannot accept it for themselves. (I know that those on the pro-side would say there are more than enough concessions, but the fact remains that the conservative evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics are genuinely unsure of whether they have a place in the church, and they feel that they are being forced out.) I was really hoping that there might have been a solution that could provide adequate provision for my Anglo-Catholic and Conservative Evangelical brothers. I want women bishops, but not in this way, a way that pushes out and excludes, and sidelines. I know how that feels, how it has felt.
I know that there are those who are crying out for justice. I know that sexism in the Church of England and other churches is rife, and needs to be dealt with and ended, that it can feel all too often like a Big Boys club, and that this is so important for women in ministry to feel validated, honoured, valued as equals. I know that the establishment of women bishops will not end sexism in the Church of England, but that it will go some way to healing the hurts, and would be an important symbolic step.
But to take this step in a way that pushes out conservative evangelical and Anglo-catholic brothers? I do not want that.
I have no conclusions, no answers or strategies. I do not know which way the vote will go, and I anticipate heartache for the Church whatever the outcome. I am praying, and I hope for an outcome that brings God glory and helps his kingdom. I am praying for God’s word to be upheld and honoured, and not dismissed as peripheral. I am praying for peace, somehow.
This feels intensely personal to me. I have a dear, dear friend who is helping to lead the campaign for women bishops, and another dear, dear friend who is leading the campaign against. I feel the pain and hurt on both sides.
I feel like a child whose parents are divorcing, and all I can do is weep.
Liked this post? Do stay in touch – subscribe by email or like my Facebook page.
Liked this post? Share the love and make my day!
Good post Tanya – this didnt feel like a rant at all, it felt like a plea for people to put down their swords and step back and take a breath.
Thanks, lady – it felt quite cathartic to write. Xx
Dear Tanya
Yes, dear one, you are treading dangerous ground, but I am glad and I agree with you! The problem arises, as I see it, when we as mere humans decide for ourselves how our Pappa is going to express Himself in and through His spiritual body. Only God has that prerogative and if He decides to teach some truth through a woman, I don’t think we should withstand Him. The goal of all the expressions of any gift from our Pappa is only to bring all of His children to maturity in their faith. If we make a rule or law out of anything, we seperate ourselves from our Lord Jesus and then any teaching or leading, weather it be through a man or a woman, is only in the flesh and will have no spiritual life. I think we should read the Scripture with a lot of “zits im leben” , in other words, we should consider the culture and ways of the times in which it was written and, of course, with a lot of dependent prayer for revelation!
Thanks, dear one, for your courage to tackle this subject. I admire you for your tenacity.
Blessings and much love to you.
Mia
Thanks so much for your affirmation, Mia – much appreciated!
I find it very moving to read this. Being housebound myself I see the world through what I read on the web and the thing that is making me miserable is the way that we as christians talk to each other. We are so patronising and pompous. We are downright rude. Yes there are some big issues but can’t we talk to each other, have open debate with respectful and loving attitudes to those who don’t think the same ? James says how can I say I love God but not love my brother ? Even sensible lovely christians lobbing attacks on each other cos of issues that may be big but are NOT key to the gospel. What would convince the world that we are truly Jesus disciples is if we could even discuss politely rather than shouting like the gutter press to each other. Thank you for putting it into words xx
“But to take this step in a way that pushes out conservative evangelical and Anglo-catholic brothers? I do not want that.” Who is it that is using harsh talk and manipulative tactics ? I don’t want these people to be pushed out, but I don’t want to be part of giving in to bullying attitudes and sulking either. It’s all very well for so many women to be so gracious about it for so long, but these people don’t just do it to potential women bishops I’m afraid.
I wonder if sometimes we have a really skewed view of the world, having it mediated as we do through Twitter! I think there are nuances and understandings that come through talking and seeing people. That’s why it’s good, I guess, that the Church of England has these synods, however unwieldy they are. Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting – much appreciated.
A thoughtful post written with grace and compassion. It is a debate that appears to have no straightforward or ‘please everybody’ solution. Women are beloved of the Lord and have many wonderful gifts to bring to the body of Christ. How this is expressed and worked out in practise will probably always be contentious. Thank you, Tanya, for your honest confusion about who to support and how.You are far from alone in feeling stuck on this issue.:)
Thanks so much for letting me know I’m not the only one!
A measured, wise post such as I’ve come to expect from you. Though I don’t agree.
“Misogynist” might be a strong word, but I have no time for the male pride and insecurity which finds scriptural justification for forbidding women to teach, preach and lead. Patriarchy was definitely not God’s dream for the world, in Rachel Held Evans’ phrase.
Jimmy Carter puts it better than I could.
“The truth is that male religious leaders have had — and still have — an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter.”
“It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices.
This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries,” he said. “The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.”
http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9831&Itemid=53
Thanks for taking the time to comment – I appreciate it. I had a feeling we wouldn’t agree on this! I do think that misogynist is an unfair word still- there are Christians (male and female) who I know and love that approached the scriptures honestly and came to the conclusion that men need to take the lead in serving, both in marriage and the church. While I do not agree with their reading of those complex scriptures, I think it is unfair to presume that they are inflicting that reading out of a desire to subjugate women, nor that they had that conclusion already and sought to impose it on the Bible.
I don’t know. I’d like to believe that there is enough room for a St Aldates, a St Andrew’s and a St Ebbes in the Church of England, wouldn’t you?
Yes I agree with your reticence to apply the term mysogynist to all complementarians. I personally would have thought that the Church would be the poorer for being without the leadership of some women I know; but theologically I do still worry that there are passages that seem to say absolutely that (and there are greater minds than mine who both agree and disagree). Would I be right to disobey what I interpret to be a Biblical injunction simply because such disobedience would seem to be more advantageous to the Church in my eyes? Would someone be right to call me misogynist if instead I held to my theological interpretation, even though I might do so against my own inclination? Are there not instances (and plenty of them) in the Bible where someone has taken steps that seemed to them counter-productive simply because they understood God to have told them to do so? I would hope Anita might believe me when I say neither male pride nor insecurity have led me there.
Thanks, Luke, for setting out a bit of your thought process; it’s really helpful.
Thanks for this article, Tanya.
You’re very real about the issue and have genuinely heard the concerns of those on both sides.
My biggest concern is that the proposed measure will exclude so many passionate, gifted, faithful people from ministry in the future on the basis of their understanding of the Bible on a few difficult texts.
Thank you so much for echoing my concerns, and for taking the time to comment.
I was scared to read this, I’ve read too many blogs, articles and so on telling me that my interpretation of the Bible is at best based on not having actually studied the Bible and at worst it makes a sexist woman hater who wants nothing more than to oppress women. I was worried that I’d find a rant against men, against conservative evangelicals and against me.
I’m sorry I doubted you fairness, holiness and wisdom.
No easy way forward, but far too many prominent people on both sides are doing themselves, the church and the Gospel dis-service in their words and actions.
Lovely Tim!
Thanks for your honesty! I think this comment expresses the growing feeling amongst conservative evangelicals that they are no longer welcome to sit at the table and eat with other evangelicals – and this makes me very sad indeed.
In the words of Elliott & ET ‘ouch’
In saying ouch earlier, I mean that I feel your pain through your beautiful words – sorry should have made that clearer originally.
Jo x
Hey there – I thought that was what you meant, but it was good to have it clarified! Ouch indeed – that is it, exactly. Much appreciated xx
Thanks for expressing well your dilemma and pain. My only (brief) advice is to relax: God’s a lot bigger than the Church…
Thanks! This too is true…
Thanks Tanya
I enjoyed your post!
Looking forward to meeting you next Monday…
Jo
Thanks! Me too!
Affirming women bishops doesn’t “force out” the conservatives any more than civil rights legislation forced whites out of the American South. They may be angry and leave, or they may stay and get used to it. Or stay and continue to resist.
But conservatives arent being forced to do anything except to STOP enforcing restrictions on other people based on their gender.
I understand this viewpoint.
I think the conservatives/anglo-Catholics would argue that they would be sinning against their conscience to have a woman in authority over them, because of those passages in scripture which prohibit a woman from teaching etc. That is why, when the legislation originally came in for women priests, there were assurances that no-one would be forced to have a woman leading them. Twenty years on, those assurances have been overturned.
This is why I would prefer a situation where there could be women bishops as well as making statutory provision for those who would want alternative oversight. That’s just my preferred outcome, but it doesn’t look like that will happen!
Thanks very much for sharing this, in any case – I think you speak for many others.
Thanks for writing this Tanya – you have made some vital points that need to be heard but i fear are being drowned out.
Thanks very much, Mark – that means a lot!
It’s good to read a balanced piece on the women bishops issue from someone who is willing to consider both sides of the argument. This should be happening more!
Sometimes the Bible is really clear on some things and sometimes as you say Tanya it appears to contradict itself (although usually when you look it more carefully there’s a good explanation that shows that it actually isn’t). When things are vague often I see people reading into the texts what they want to believe rather than weighing up the arguments. Because this is not a simple black and white situation I suspect God doesn’t mind if we have women bishops, especially as the concept of bishop is not entirely biblical anyway.
Whilst that is my view, I am somewhat tired of the endless debate that surrounds this. Some of it is sound and some of it brings in agendas that are theologically dubious and not particularly biblical. Often this is from the pro-lobby, which annoys me as it undermines their case.
We went through this with women priests and we managed to get through it without the Church of England falling apart. I am sure it can happen again.
This issue isn’t going to rip the church apart, but whichever way the vote goes the ‘winners’ should make a big effort to show a lot of grace to those who didn’t get their way. If we can’t demonstrate Christ’s love to each other through this process then we have a bigger problem than whether women should be allowed to become bishops or not.
Thanks so much for this comment – especially your last paragraph. You’re utterly right – it is the only way forward – this is most wise.
A beautiful post, Tanya. If only all of Christendom would approach these issues with as much grace and love as your post. Especially when you are someone who has been involved, even painfully involved, in the issue. It is so refreshing to hear such a gentle explanation of your point of view.
I’m undecided about the whole issue, but I can clearly see why each side feels the way they do. Personally I’m grateful for the blog you write and am glad you do.
I just can’t help thinking what a beautiful thing the Church across the world would be if we could just bring this tone to all of our in-house discussions. If we could start at the fruit of the spirit and work from there. But it is a hard thing.
Beautifully written.
thank you so much, as ever, for hearing my heart on this – I REALLY appreciate it.
Thanks for this Tanya – really good to hear, not least because you remind us that there are real people in this debate, not just positions of argument. I guess I’m a complementarian (after much prayer and study) but also a husband to an extraordinarily gifted wife, and father to three girls. It does sometimes cut to the quick if people see my view as chauvinist, not least because I’m then often riddled with doubt about whether that makes me a poor father and husband, although there’s plenty of room for improvement there in any case. It’s clear that much unnecessary personal angst has been felt by those in favour of women bishops as well.
“there are real people in this debate” – yes, exactly. Thanks so much for this.
[...] Read This… and Watch This [...]
Tanya,
I am sure God is disappointed over the things we fight over. It is like we are fighting over who can do stuff for God. We treat ourselves as the enemy while the real enemy wins by letting us fight among ourselves. I remember Paul commenting on people who preached Christ from wrong motives; was his response to prohibit this. No; he said as long as Christ was being preached he was fine with it. I do not claim to understand all of the Bible and do not feel I ever will. I can see how people fall on both sides of this issue but the bigger issue for me is this: Am I serving God how I should and are the things we are doing as a church reaching the lost. Certainly making this issue so important is not doing either. I do know we should “Above all love each other deeply for love covers over a multitude of sins”. We are not going to get it all right no matter who we are and no matter how sure we are that we will. We are arrogant if we think so. I read this statement on a ladies blog recently that I think we should all consider: “I sit in the quiet with my God and I don’t concern myself with right and wrong in others, only in me, to be sure that I’m loving as radically as He does.” (http://extraordinary-ordinary.net/2012/11/09/an-open-letter/) We need to be doing this and not fighting over who is right or wrong. And we should not be deciding who can do what for God. Let him handle that.
Thanks Mark – it’s good to have a perspective from the other side of the pond!
As a traditionally-minded Roman Catholic, I read this with great interest.
First I would like to applaud your balanced and compassionate approach – and also the risk you took in writing this.
Second, I am genuinely curious. I can understand the position against women priests – indeed it is one I hold myself (though it is nothing to do with not wishing women to preach the Gospel or have positions of leadership – we rejoice in having women Doctors of the Church, for example – nor in considering women inferior, my wife instructs me to say…).
But as I say I am curious: once one has accepted the principle of women priests, why is it women bishops that are the sticking point? I know there are arguments about authority, but surely a woman priest is invested with authority.
I don’t mean this to be a ‘snippy’ question: as I say I am genuinely curious. It seems an odd place to draw the line, to me.
Thanks so much for stopping by and offering your perspective. Am I right in thinking that for Roman Catholics, the issue of women priests is that the call of a priest is to represent Christ, and that as Christ was male and single, the priests should be too? I am not sure if I got that right….
For conservative evangelicals, as I understand it, the issue is one of ‘headship’. They believe that the injunction in 2 Tim 2 for a woman not to speak or have authority over a man is because (in 1 Cor and elsewhere) men are to be the ‘head’ over women. They believe this to be a important command to reflect the relationship of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5 etc). I am expressing this rather poorly, so perhaps someone else could clarify things.
I know less about why it’s a problem for the Anglo-Catholics – I believe it to be the issue of communion not being celebrated properly if it is not someone representative of Christ (ie male) – though again, I might have things slightly askew, and need to be corrected.
At the moment, a church PCC can opt not to have a woman priest if their conscience would not allow it. Conservative and Anglo-Catholic clergy are concerned that they would have a woman in authority over them if they were to have a female bishop as their bishop, so they want alternative oversight.
Hope this answers your question! I am aware that I am answering for a position that I do not hold, so I may be misrepresenting – do correct me if there are A-Cs/Cons Evos who want to express it better.
Thanks for your answer: I think I am beginning to understand the issues within the CofE more clearly.
I don’t think you have got it quite right about the Roman Catholic understanding. Male is seen as essential, but celibacy (single) is a matter of Church discipline and does not apply (for example) in the Orthodox Churches whose sacramental ministry we recognise; moreover, pastoral exceptions have been made in the Roman Church for Anglicans converting. So the two issues do not go together int that way.
The issue of the priest representing Christ is part of a theological attempt to understand the male-only priesthood, rather than the reason for the male-only priesthood.
As I understand it, the basis of the Roman Catholic understanding is this:
A As Christians we are bound to follow Christ: he ordained only men
B As Christians, we believe Christ to be God Incarnate, and therefore to have known what He was doing and to have done wisely and justly
C The likelihood of Christ being constrained by the customs of his time is less than the likelihood of our being misled by the sensibilities of our time
D Further to #C, the customs of his time were no accident, but the result of the formation of the Jewish People over the whole period of the Old Testament
E The Church is led by the Holy Spirit, and is (to say the least) unlikely to have been guilty of so grave an error for 20 centuries
F The witness of Christendom endures: the vast majority of Christendom (Roman Catholic and Orthodox) still adhere to the tradition received from the Apostles
G There are strong arguments from authority (both the teaching magisterium of the Church, for those who believe in that and the teaching authority of Scripture (which I would hope we all believe in)) in favour of the traditional understanding
H The job of theology is to seek ever-greater understanding: it is secondary, not primary
I would also add that in practice, the decision to ordain women has clearly further fragmented Christian denominations and rendered final reconciliation far harder to envisage.
Finally, for me it comes down to a matter of trust and obedience: in whom am I to place my trust, to whom do I owe obedience? The example of Our Lord, the Apostles, the Fathers of the Church, the centuries of tradition (including many notable female saints who never claimed a vocation to the priesthood), on the one hand? Or a fairly small band of people who, genuinely inspired by a zeal for justice, live in a small window of time that happens to coincide with my own life?
Naturally, I do not expect you to agree with me here; I have stated my views in this way for the sake of clarity: I hope it doesn’t come across as strident!…
Thanks so much for explaining more fully what you believe as a Roman Catholic. (I particularly never understood why married Anglo-Catholic priests were accepted into the fold – that has clarified things for me! Don’t Roman Catholic priests feel a bit peeved on account of this?)
Thank you for setting out such a thorough response – I appreciate it.
The short answer is yes: some Roman Catholic Priests do feel a bit peeved; but others are gracious in recognising the significant sacrifices people have made.
Tanya,
As I understand it (I would approach the subject somewhat differently, so the following should not be taken as my own position on the subject, although I share many of the concerns, if not all of the chosen solutions to them), conservative evangelical positions work as follows. If anyone who identifies fully with the conservative evangelical position thinks that I am caricaturing or misrepresenting them here, or leaving something important out, please set me straight:
1. The Scriptures are our only final authority in faith and practice. Evangelicals may recognize the authority of the Church’s tradition in this area, but this authority is always subordinate to that of the Scriptures.
2. Within the Scriptures we find teachings that seem clearly to exclude women from positions of pastoral authority over men in such places as 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14. This is not necessarily seen to exclude women from positions of authority in general (there are many differences in how widely the teaching is seen to apply), even within the Church, just from pastoral authority over men. Nor is it necessarily seen to rule out women instructing men in spiritual, theological, or moral matters, just from exercising the authoritative teaching offices of the Church.
3. The consistent pattern of the Scriptures is seen to differentiate the vocations of men and women, especially within the Church. Even in his cultural context, for instance, in Paul’s direct teaching on these matters, for instance, he seems to push in the direction of the clearer differentiation of men and women in worship and Church polity, rather than in the direction of treating gender as more indifferent in that realm. We see this differentiation in the more normative teaching of Scripture (such as the Pauline passages already mentioned and places such as Ephesians 5), in the divinely established institutions of Scripture (an all male priesthood in the OT, the Church founded on the leadership of twelve male apostles, etc.), in the archetypal passages on male and female (Genesis 1-3 in particular), and in the context of biblical symbolism (Christ and Church as husband and bride, the consistent use of male pronouns in reference to God, themes of sonship and fatherhood, etc.). For this reason, the true value of men and women is believed to be found in the flourishing of each sex’s distinct character in mutually serving asymmetrical vocations.
The above is the primary basis for the case. Supporting arguments seek to articulate the rationale for such a teaching. These supporting arguments tend to rely heavily on the broader reasoning of the passages from Paul that can be found within the basis of the case:
1. Headship. Paul teaches that the man is the head of the woman (1 Corinthians 11:3ff). This headship tends to be understood chiefly in terms of representation and responsibility. Male headship means that men represent the foundational order of such institutions as the Church and the family to God. If these orders fail, it is primarily the men who will be answerable. For instance, humankind falls in Adam, not primarily in Adam and Eve (although Eve’s sin leads to women suffering in childbirth, Adam’s sin leads to the curse and Death). Male leadership in Church (and family) is seen to be about men stepping up to take their God-appointed responsibility to establish and guard the fundamental order of that realm. This leadership is supposed to be a loving form of servant leadership, which empowers and protects others, putting their needs and desires above one’s own, rather than one of domination over and suppression of the weak. In turn, women are called to submit to and honour this servant leadership.
2. The order of creation. Adam was created first and given a vocation: Eve was created as the helper for Adam in his vocation (although the vocation/blessing of Genesis 1 is given to men and women together). This order, appealed to by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, is seen to support male responsibility for leadership
3. The order of the Trinity. This is a controversial one among conservative evangelicals: not all agree with this argument. 1 Corinthians 11 relates the headship of the man to the headship of the Father over Christ. The ‘eternal subordination of the Son’ (a teaching that many of us find deeply problematic) is used to support the notion of equality in value or being, but difference in roles.
4. The order of the Gospel. The male-female relationship is used on numerous occasions in Scripture as a symbol of the relationship between God and his people or Christ and the Church (e.g. in the prophets, traditional readings of the Song of Songs, or Ephesians 5). This order is one that begins with the male acting towards or on behalf of the female, leads to the female’s own free answer and response, and culminates with the marital union. The leadership and temporal priority of the male’s role derives in part from the pattern of Christ’s relationship to his Church in the gospel in such passages as Ephesians 5.
5. Our picture of God (this may take a little longer to flesh out, but it is an important one). The leadership of the Church serves to maintain God’s rule within the Church. The form of leadership that we adopt has an important impact upon our conception of the way that God and his rule relates to us. Men and women are not symbolically neutral. A mother is not just a parent who happens to be female, nor a father a parent who happens to be male. The form of bond between a mother and her child differs from that between a father and his child and the actions of mothering and fathering will also differ as a result.
As Church leadership is supposed to maintain the form of God’s rule, a movement towards women in pastoral leadership, given that men and women are not symbolically neutral or interchangeable (does it make no difference whether we speak of God as bride and Church as husband or vice versa?), may have dangerous knock on effects in our conception of and relationship to God. In particular, the movement towards women in pastoral leadership often seems to have gone hand in hand with a shifting conception of images of God and Church leadership. The husband, the father, the master, the warrior, the lord, the sovereign, the king, the judge, the biblical fighting shepherd, the watchman, the law-giver, are all images of God and his rule that many churches are downplaying in their forms of leadership.
It does not seem to be accidental that the increasingly therapeutic image of an intimate and non-judgmental God and the steady displacing or muting of these primary and masculine-weighted biblical metaphors should be accompanied by a movement towards a preference for non-confrontational males and women for pastoral ministry. While nurturing ministries should be expressed within the Church as expressions of other dimensions of God’s relationship with his people, and the pastor should also be able gently to nurture the flock in certain ways, the crucial task of the pastor as a sort of holy warrior, guardian, and representative of God’s sovereign rule in the Church is easily lost sight of, with troubling and potentially idolatrous consequences for our view of God. The issue here is not that the pastoral ministry expresses the only way that God relates to his people, but that it is the office that is supposed to represent God’s authority in the Church, and when we downplay the biblical images of God’s authority in order to have an egalitarian and inclusive pastoral ministry we risk producing a Church that is no longer clearly under or relating to that authority. By such confusions we also risk compromising the particular ways in which the ministries of women within the Church represent other dimensions of God’s relationship to and work amongst his people.
While the conservative evangelical position is frequently dismissed as merely misogynist, I think that there is more than enough theological and biblical substance of argumentation in it to merit charitable, receptive, and thoughtful engagement.
Thank you so much for this thorough outline. Thanks too, for pointing out that the order of the Trinity is a controversial one amongst cons Evos – this argument has been used a lot in the run-up to women bishops debate,nwhich surprised me.
I agree with your last paragraph, that serious students of the Bible need to engage seriously with this perspective, particularly as it has been held for a good deal of the church’s existence. Thanks for taking the time to outline this.
I suspect that there are various reasons for the line being drawn at this point. Most importantly, the women priests but not bishops position doesn’t seem to be a consistent form of any of the parties’ concerns. It is a compromise position, allowing opposing positions on this issue to co-exist to some degree. In particular, it ensures that, a) no conservative evangelical or Anglo-Catholic church opposed to the ordination of women to the office of priest or bishop has to come under the leadership of someone they do not believe to be validly ordained, contrary to their conscience; b) some form of valid apostolic succession is maintained for the Anglo-Catholics (and perhaps also for the purposes of ecumenical relations).
The problem is that support for women bishops has gained more traction within the Church of England and the current compromise situation seems to give far too much weight to a weakening constituency of conservative Anglo-Catholics and conservative evangelicals in determining the more general church polity. In such a situation, it is understandable that a new settlement should be sought and perhaps not surprising, given the ascendency of the pro-women bishop camp in the church, that a compromise settlement would no longer be considered acceptable, as earlier pragmatic accommodation to the limitations of political possibility gives way to a more ideological refusal to give ground on such an issue of principle.
In some ways, for conservatives the choice is the unappealing one between being driven back into a sort of weakened reservation or losing any right to a polity that provides room for their principles.
I wish the debated passages were discussed more in this article. Base on the picture I see of the female role in the Bible, I see woman having a place of honor even if they are not granted a leadership role. I would never say that any passage permits sex discrimination because that would be unloving. I do wish that there was peace on this issue, and I don’t think allowing woman to be pastors or bishops will end the conflict if anything it will just be the first battle in the war for Bible interpretation next will come the definition of marriage and then even something as ridiculous as christian universalism.
Thanks very much for stopping by and sharing your view. I didn’t want to go into the various passages here – that would have made for an extremely long blog post! On this, I really like The Gender Agenda, which has a dialogue between two women with opposing views on the various relevant passages, and has a good discussion on these things.
Thanks for writing this, Tanya.
I am saddened by the seeming inability of the church to have a serious, charitable, yet challenging conversation on these issues. Sometimes it appears as though we can only have competing monologues, playing off one set of Bible verses against another (or sometimes just unbiblical accusations and name-calling).
I find myself unable to support the ordination of women to the episcopate. My reasons for holding this position arise from my convictions that it is ruled out by the biblical teaching that has bearing upon the subjects of ordination and the office of the bishop and concerning the differentiated vocations of men and women in the Church. I do not believe that my reasons for holding this position are attributable to misogyny. However, as I am convinced that it is not appropriate just to brush off such a serious charge without extensive investigation, I have examined myself and my motives on this front carefully and prayerfully, and in dialogue with others, especially with women and with people who disagree with me.
I do not believe that we have the liberty to pick and choose when it comes to Scripture. This is a conviction that has challenging consequences for my own life, consequences which I accept: this isn’t about imposing difficult standards upon others but being unwilling to submit to difficult standards myself.
One of the things that this means is that I have to do serious business with the favoured texts of people who disagree with me. I can’t just treat them as exceptions to be put to one side. All of the biblical references to prophetic or leading women such as Deborah, Huldah, Junia, etc. are inspired and must also be received as the authoritative word of God to his Church, as must texts such as Galatians 3:28. Explaining these away weakly isn’t enough either: I have to engage with them closely and in depth and give them their full weight. These texts must also be squared with the no less widespread biblical teaching about the differentiation of male and female roles, from the start of Genesis onwards. I believe that the answer will be found by digging deeper into Scripture, rather than by jettisoning one part of the biblical witness that doesn’t quite fit into our models.
I do not believe that the place of women in the Church has been adequately recognized and believe that radical change is needed on this front. I also believe that misogyny is a big issue in the Church (and, frankly, I don’t think that misogyny in the Church maps tidily onto pro-women bishops/anti-women bishops or egalitarian/complementarian divides: it is often absent where we presume its presence and present where we presume its absence).
Sometimes I wonder whether one of the chief problems I have with the women bishops approach is not that it is too radical, but that it is not radical enough. It takes the whole modern framing of the issues under discussion largely for granted. It takes largely for granted a particular understanding of ordination, of the relationship between the clergy and the laity, and of the place and nature of ordained ministry more generally in the Church. It takes largely for granted a particular understanding of the role of the bishop. It takes largely for granted a modern anthropology and the theories of equality as removal of differentiation that tend to be bound up with that. It takes largely for granted certain modern theories of gender. Framed in terms of these assumptions, the conclusions that are reached don’t surprise me, nor is it surprising that those who oppose are often automatically labelled as misogynists. However, the right answers to the wrong questions are not a real answer at all.
Those who oppose women bishops tend to have their own set of assumptions that are never really questioned. The problem is that neither party seems to be able to establish the emotional distance necessary with the issues in order to be able to step back from the presumed framings and deep ideological trenches and rethink the issues biblically, imaginatively, and with the patience, humility, and charity to be able to listen to those who disagree. Are we asking the right questions? Are we building our cases upon reliable assumptions? I don’t believe that we are. Is it possible that there is a completely different way of approaching these issues, which serves to champion the necessity of the prominent ministry of women in the Church, without devaluing it relative to the ministry of men, and without taking the route of undifferentiation of ministries? I think that there is, but I doubt that we have the patience or emotional distance necessary to discover and unpack it.
I think that there is much to be gained from charitable and attentive discourse here. Charitable, tractable yet uncompromising, people on the other side of such cases are often the best people to interact with, in a sort of conversation that leads, not only to mutual understanding, but a fuller and less one-sided appropriation of the truth. They don’t let us get away with dodging key issues and force us to hone our positions, but are willing to listen to our cases. Unfortunately, the zero sum game of competing monologues isn’t prepared to admit the challenge of a different perspective and will seek to drive the other party off or out, rather than seeking for a way to arrive at a biblical reconciliation of concerns.
The treatment of the women bishops issue has forced me to think seriously about what future if any I have in a church where a significant number seem to be concerned to freeze out one side of such conversations, presuming bad motives on their part, without closely engaging with many of the biblical concerns that they are bringing forward. Given the way that this particular issue has developed over the last few decades and the way that those opposing women bishops have been treated, I see less and less justification to rely upon the charity, goodwill, and the assurances of those who disagree with me in this area. Is it really sensible to commit myself to a context where others will constantly be trying to elbow my position out of the conversation, refusing to listen to my case, believing me to be driven by evil and malicious motives, or seemingly breaking assurances that they once gave? Although I am not at that point yet, I can quite understand why many people are leaving: sensing the poisonous nature of the atmosphere and how difficult it can be to maintain a positive conservative Christian witness in such a context, sometimes one wonders whether the kingdom would be better served if you just went elsewhere. It is fairly clear that views such as mine aren’t really very welcome in the Church of England at the moment.
Sorry for such a long and rambling comment.
Thanks so much for this comment – I always appreciate your analysis.
I can understand your fears (and hurt?) at the nature of the discourse. It is always frustrating to feel that you are not ‘understood’ and heard in this way, and the genuine concern about whether you will have a place in the Church of England is one that is echoed by many others. It is hard to know a good way forward…
Thanks for stopping by, and for your grace in understanding, though you have a different position on this issue. It is much appreciated.
Thank you, Tanya. Fortunately, I don’t feel at all hurt personally by the current discourse. I think that tempers are raised on all sides and that people are saying things and holding harsh positions that perhaps they wouldn’t at calmer moments. I know well-meaning and good people on both sides, who are both speaking out of their own profound hurt and unwittingly hurting others as a result. I don’t want to take it personally, as I don’t think that, deep down, people bear me ill-will.
My primary response to the current discourse is disappointment and sadness at the loss of a challenging opportunity for the sort of genuine and illuminating discourse that could surprise and change both sides with a true reconciliation of concerns beyond the barricades, through deeper and more rigorous wrestling with the Scriptures on this subject. I am also saddened to see the fraying of relationships and love that this has been causing. I am frustrated by the failure of communication in this debate and our apparent inability to frame everything in terms of a love for and faith in each other that would yield the patience and grace to listen to each other and take concerns on board.
I am also very concerned about what this means for the future of the Church of England and my place within it. I am concerned about whether a church that steadily squeezes out a position that has been the historic teaching and more or less universal practice of the Church for most of its history, followed by most of our great heroes from Church history, and still maintained as the teaching of most of the Church worldwide, is in danger of becoming a sect, rather than an expression of the one catholic Church, especially when it accuses this position of misogyny and other sins. I am concerned about the other developments that this might pave the way for within the Church of England. I am concerned about what conservative evangelicals will lose if they cut themselves off from the Church of England and what the Church of England could lose with them too. I am concerned about what this all suggests about the state of contemporary theological and ecclesiastical discourse and the weak state of our love for each other. I am concerned by how we all so easily prioritize getting our way over keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Alastair
I think your comments are very wise. I don’t have any answers and in fact I’m not sure I’m even asking the questions under discussion, but I think that you are right that the questions arise out of a modern and particular framework for discussions and I like the idea that the answer is not radical enough.
I would hate for you Alistair to feel squeezed out of the C of E, because I’m definitely sure you are in the body of Christ, from the spirit behind your words. I don’t think that you can actually leave that!
I’m considering ordination, primarily because I heard God say to me last Eastertime ‘be ordained’, whether that was in itself an instruction or a proclamation I am yet to determine and I don’t know how this will play put in my life as yet, being female I am profoundly glad that the church of my childhood now welcomes female priests, and I am exploring this vocationally at the moment. However I would like to add that I think that in brokenness and loss there is special blessing, so that the gospel comes with special power and grace to slaves, the poor, the downtrodden. It is blessed NOT to demand one’s so-called ‘rights’ but to deliberately and painfully embrace the lowest place of service to all. This has cut across my life sometimes through being a woman, as it perhaps has this time for those seeking women bishops. I have found that on the other side of pain there is always glory, God be praised.
Wise and humble thoughts – thanks, ambling saint.
Tanya
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and your charity, and your willingness to step back from your own pain and your own wishes – to try and see the issue from the perspective of the whole church. I sensed this was hard for you to write, but I’m grateful that you did.
Thank you so much. It was indeed hard to write (and scary to press ‘publish’) – thank you for seeing that. I really appreciate your affirmation of that. Thank you.
An excellent post on the matter and one that I wholeheartedly agree with.
This is what I wrote on the matter a while back:
http://youthpastablog.wordpress.com/2012/07/07/women-in-church-leadership/
Thank you – am heading over to yours now to check it out!
Totally agree. well put.
I’m reminded of some words from my pastor on passages that are hard – some scratch their heads & say we’ll never know. Others say it’s obvious & are ready to shoot others down if they dissent. If the gospel means anything, then let’s put down our guns and app scratching our heads. If I have not love, I am nothing, and I gain nothing.
Chris
If I have not love, I am nothing – Amen, amen. Thank you for this.
Hi Tanya,
I remember a bunch of DICCU people discussing women priests over drinks and cake at Vennels. Needless to say, both sides of the debate were presented, with varying degrees of force and grace (though nobody was actually mean, from what I remember!). Part way through the discussion, someone piped up, “Nick, isn’t your Mum a priest?”. It was interesting then to watch those ‘against’ women in ministry hastily rerunning their arguments mentally in the light of this information to see if I was likely to have been offended by what they said. I think that serves as a useful reminder that these discussions do indeed involve people, not just concepts. We all need to bear this in mind in our discussions with others. You’ve done this with both clarity and grace, thank you.
I wonder if it’s the concepts that divide the church, or the people. (Don’t worry, I recognise that’s a bit simplistic, but the fact is, relationships tend to be strained more by our actions than by our beliefs (another simplistic statement, perhaps!)).
I love this story. ‘these discussions involve people, not just concepts’ – yes – and thank you for illustrating that so well. Wise words, Nick, as ever. Many thanks.
Just added some thoughts of my own to the cacophony of voices. http://longingtobeholy.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/godswords-peace/
Praying for peace. However unlikely that may seem right now.
Hi Tanya, found this wonderful blogpost by way of broken cameras. I think your last line sums it up perfectly. This doesn’t feel or look like a debate within a loving family but a divorce. Someone will gain the lions share of the alimony but I think whoever wins will have a fragmented, angry, hurting church to minister within. I pray that God will be with both the winners and losers come this evening.
Thanks so much for venturing over here.
It’s just really sad, isn’t it?
Praying with you that God will work, somehow to bind and heal.
Thank you, Tanya, for expressing so eloquently what I feel as an ordained woman in the CofE, who is in favour of women bishops (if they are appropriately gifted, godly and called to that office by God) but who is also in favour of a safeguarded and honoured position within the CofE for my brothers and sisters who in all conscience are not…
Encouraged by people such as this.
[...] http://tanyamarlow.com/on-women-bishops/ [...]
Dear Tanya Marlow,
The established denominations have allowed tradition, politics and secularism into the Church.
God is very clear in my opinion with respect to women’s role in the church. The church is not a building or an organisation but the Church of Jesus Christ which is the body of Christ. I.e. All Christians that have confessed Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and are Born Again. Without spiritual understanding from the Holy Spirit the Bible seems like just instructions and rules. However behind every commandment and instruction there are spiritual principles that have been set in place by God and they cannot be changed just like gravity. You can try and work against them but you will get nowhere.
God only blesses that which is done out of faith and in accordance with His will and not ours. His will is what is written in the Bible and you can understand everything if you look at it with an open heart and an attitude that you want to learn about Jesus and His Father and come into relationship with Him. Trying to find proof for your own opinions will not work and your education means nothing. God says what He means and means what He says. Yes there are seemingly difficult passages to understand but at the right time when you are ready they will make sense. Jesus wants us to get on and do what can be easily understood. I have many posts on my website including one which I just posted concerning women in the Church which is soundly scripturally based and hopefully will help clarify and questions you might have.
http://raymondjclements.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/the-new-testament-church-the-role-of-women/
There are a lot important things to do than argue about women Bishops. I believe like many other Christians around the world that we are in the end times and the church of Christ should be maturing to be adults and not mere babes able to minister to the unsaved about the tribulations which will come, some of which have already started.
Jesus said that we can tell that the time is near when you see wars, rumours of wars etc.
May Jesus give you grace and revelation about His word and the faith to walk it out.
Yours in Christ
RaymondTheBrave
Raymond,
Imagine a society where the life of the family was exclusively focused on fathers: mothers didn’t even have a name. Fathers received all of the praise, honour, and attention. They were the only ones who voices really counted in the running of the life of the family, or in the raising and teaching of the children of the family. Women were sidelined and their talents and extensive work went unacknowledged, suppressed, and unused.
Over time many within the society had enough of this unjust situation, and pushed for a change: they tried to introduce legislation allowing women to become fathers, just like men. Many men and not a few women pushed back against this, pointing out that only a man could be a father. In the end, their position carried the day and women were forbidden from becoming fathers.
Now, even if we believe that saying that women can’t become fathers is the right position to hold, can we really believe that the situation that would follow the defeat of this legislation would be a good thing and not oppressive to women? Can we not recognize the pain of women whose gifts go unrecognized, unsupported, and unhonoured within the life of the Church? While we may not believe that the gifts and roles of the women in the Church are rightly recognized as the gifts and roles of bishops, can we not feel the pain of their marginalization with them as fellow members of the body of Christ, suffering where they suffer? Can we really rest satisfied with a situation short of one in which their gifts and roles receive the full recognition and honour due to them?
I believe that God does not say ‘no’ to us without having something better in store for us. I really don’t believe that the status quo represents that for women. Sorry, I just can’t. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, instead of hitting others with Bible verses when they are down, we instead sought to pursue a better way together?
Dear Alastair,
I found it difficult to follow what you are saying. Women have a very important role in society and especially the family. You focus on males/fathers in the family I cannot understand your point. Wife’s are equals in the marriage but as God says the head of man is Him and the head of women is man. I think you are misunderstanding what head means. The man protects the women if she is submissive to his spiritual authority and this is very clear from the scriptures which are our standards by which we should live and not by what the world says or tries to conform us to. God spiritually protects the man if he submits to God. It is the order and way that God has set up His kingdom, I did not set this up but Jesus did.
Proverbs 31 is a great section on the worth of a women and mother. When you get married and man and a women become one flesh and the women is called a help meet.
However the real issue being discussed I thought was the question of women Bishops. My comment above and the post on my blog I have made show what Jesus has to say about leadership in His church. If you call yourself a Christian then the Bible is what we live by and not our own opinions. Quoting scripture is what Jesus did all the time and it is how we should live when it comes to defending our faith. I do not quote scripture all the time and especially not to secular people. I operate in love. The basis for the Anglican church should be what the bible says and not some theological debate on how to keep up with the times and have more converts or parishioners. The Bible is very straightforward but man wants to make it complicated.
On the question of the exceptions when a mother becomes a widow or a husband becomes a widower the bible handles these exceptions in a pragmatic and Godly way. A widow should be supported by the church around her and God becomes her head as she no longer has a husband. Remember He is Abba Father. Too many people look at the exceptions in society today and want the rule to resolve around those exceptions but by definition they are exceptions which God is more than a where.
How do you define your faith if not what is in the Bible? You cannot accept some scriptures and ignore others. How can you justify that at all as a follower of Christ.
Yours in love and hope.
RaymondTheBrave
Raymond
I don’t know if you know Alastair at all, or if you’ve read anything else that he is written. He is not someone I would ever wish to charge with defining his faith elsewhere than in the Bible, and he does not accept some scriptures and ignore others (other than to the extent that we all do that unwittingly). In other writings, he has bravely and clearly defended biblical Christianity in ways our culture finds hard to hear.
Alastair is not saying that. He’s rather saying that there is a time to recognise that there are fellow members of the Christian church who are deeply hurting, and to try and feel some of the pain they feel. There are times to martial biblical arguments on an issue, and there are times simply to sit down and weep with those with whom we don’t agree.
The arguments for and against women holding particular offices in the Church of England have been well rehearsed over recent years. Possibly neither side has heard the other view as carefully as would be good – and this comment thread has a few posts in it that have helped overcome that. What’s needed today is not for either side to restate those arguments. As one part of the body suffers, the others suffer with it, and today is a sad day whatever your persuasion.
Tanya’s original post courageously made the point that the vote we got was the least damaging of two bad options. Whichever way Synod had voted yesterday, a lot of people would have been hurting this morning. Me – I’m numb. Let’s pray for one another, pray with one another, and work to find a better way forwards together.
Thanks, James. That is exactly what I am saying. Now is not the time for rehearsing arguments against each other, but for being present to, praying for, and supporting each other through an experience that has been incredibly sad and painful for almost all of us, wherever we might stand on the issues.
A big amen on this from me – thank you, James.
Hi Raymond,
I’ve followed the link to your blog and posted a comment there. The reason I’ve chosen to post it there rather than here is that I don’t think this particular comment stream is the place for a discussion of the issues in the way I have in my comment. Tanya, if you want to, you’re welcome to read the comment over there, but feel free not to too!
Tanya, thanks for creating space for such a lively (meaning informative) discussion. It also warms my Scottish heart to read the names of those commenting.
Thanks, Amy. And I’m glad to be of service in warming your Scottish heart!
[...] to the decision. I confess I am not. Theologically and spiritually, I can see both sides. But this blog post seemed to give a very helpful reason why maybe now was not the [...]
Tanya, just referred to your blog for the first time. Love this entry and others. Thanks so much. (Just realised I posted this on another entry and meant to post it here!)
Thank you for both these comments!
Dear Tanya,
Thanks for your honest and gracious reflections on the matter – it’s good to see an example of Christians managing to disagree in a loving, thoughtful and understanding manner rather than the bitter, name-calling and almost vitriolic nature that all too often seems to characterise these debates …
As such, I would say that from my understanding of Scripture I disagree with your position, but I really, massively appreciate the loving graciousness that you have extended to those who hold a different position to your own – pointing out that it’s not out of an attempt to subjugate women or because their ministry is not valued. For example, I dearly love my wife – and she is an invaluable partner to me in our ministry together – she helps me massively in my leadership, advises me and encourages me again and again and again and I would honestly struggle to do it without her. Just because I am the leader, does not mean that her contribution is not valuable – in fact, I’d say that it’s absolutely vital … and my leadership would not be the same without her.
I think it’s always easy to forget in this debate, that power and authority are not everything – the leaders of a church are not the only ones who have an incredibly valuable ministry. Peter describes the whole church as a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9-12) – we all have a hugely valuable role to play – this is backed up in Paul’s teaching on the church being a body in 1 Corinthians 12. I believe that Churches work best when the whole body is pulling together in it’s ministry – and every part is valued, regardless of their gender/position/authority. And most of all, we have the ultimate example of Jesus who left the splendour and glory of heaven to be humbled to death on a cross … I think on all sides, as you have done in this post, we need plenty of humility, grace, love, understanding … and prayer!
Thank you …
[...] I wrote about how I felt before the vote. We haven’t had a divorce, but this is one of the more painful weeks in the Church of England that I can remember. [...]
[...] of women bishops on this occasion were not sufficiently Christian. Another was by Tanya Marlow, “On Women Bishops”, which acknowledges the deep pain she (and other women) feel at being discriminated against, while [...]
Dear Tanya
Thanks for this post and all that follows.
I am undecided about this issue, but what strikes me as I listen and read about this is that the preoccupation by most spokespeople of the C of E is with how the C of E will be perceived rather than what is right (or loving). But didn’t Jesus say “Woe to you when all men speak well of you?”
I would further echo what one Anglo Catholic writer said that “[I] live in a small window of time that happens to coincide with my own life”. In this period, the Western World is preoccupied, even obsessed, with “equality” at almost all costs. You could say it is the nearest thing to a religion that many people and institutions have. And this is based on historical factors, notably a reaction to events around the Second World War. If history had gone differently, we might have had far different but equally valid perspectives and values and been happy for men to live in loving service and women to live in happy submission, just as the Trinity does within itself.
Thanks so much for this – some really interesting insights here. I happen to like equality, but I agree, I also get a bit twitchy when Christians start elevating it as an all-important value. The Bible doesn’t speak about equality per se – it talks of love, and justice, and things like that. The differences are tiny but subtle. Whether or not they amount to the same thing, I would still prefer to be using the language of the abible to talk about values, rather than the language of the world. I fear I have communicated this a little clumsily – I hope you know what I mean!
Tanya,
After reading this (by the way very well written) and then reading through the comments section, I can’t help but wonder how a women is able to see the bits of texts against women leadership and not read them as anti, I’ve done a bit of research on this, but regardless it is still written right there in the bible, how do you deal with this? how do you read this? You seem to be quite smart and clearly have had to deal with this issue before which is why I’m really interested in knowing what you think and why you think it. On the one hand I don’t want to ignore bits of the bible because I don’t like what they say, on the other hand if I do surrender and agree that they mean what people claim, I don’t think I can keep my faith, which is so important to me.
I’m sorry for unloading this on you, but I really would like to know what you think about the whole issue.
sorry for taking so long to reply – I have been a little slack, of late!
This will be quick for now, but do come back if you want more. The best recent book examining these issues is ‘The Gender Agenda’ by Lis Goddard and Claire Hendry, which has a complementarian and egalitarian in dialogue about how to interpret those passages. There are other books that talk about hermeneutics and a great deal of eminent evangelical Bible scholars (Gordon Fee is one of my favourites) who see Paul (as I do) as being very progressive about women. Paula Gooder has also written an excellent article for the sophia network on how to read Paul http://sophianetwork.typepad.com/sophia_network/2008/02/article-women-in-paul-reading-between-the-cracks-by-paula-gooder.html
I read a book on what life is like for women today in Iran (“Reading Lolita in Tehran”). It’s not at all a Christian book but it was really helpful for getting my head around what life is like in a patriarchal honour-culture that defines New Testament communities and much of the Arab world today. If you read Paul in this context rather than through Western eyes, it is really helpful for understanding. I hope this gives you something to go on, but do come back to me!