Plans were announced last night to appoint a new bishop in the Church of England who will specifically believe that women are subordinate to men to minister to, encourage and represent those in the Church of England who believe this, ie that men have been given headship over women by God, to be true. (This isn’t a joke, this is real).
This had been planned for some time and was part of the deal whereby that church agreed to open the Episcopate to candidates who happen to be female.
It rather neatly proves some of the terrible things I was saying about the Church of England earlier in the week to be true.
On this occasion, I take no pleasure in being right.
The following questions arising from the misogyny of a “headship” bishop should now be raised:
- To Members of Parliament: Are you really comfortable with 1 million children being educated every day by an organisation with these values?
- To candidates in the next election: Will you support the disestablishment of the Church of England because organisations which behave in this way should have no privileged place in parliament?
- To the Archbishop of Canterbury: Do you realise that this makes you personally look like a misogynist too as suffragan appointments are always personal to the bishop involved?
- In the General Synod of the Church of England: …. and if people ask for a bishop with racist views to represent them, will we do that too?
- To the BBC: Why are you not covering this story as a major news item?
- To those who serve in Church House, Westminster: Why do progressive changes to the Church of England have to go through years of debate at General Synod and regressive ones don’t?
- To Primates around the communion: Why is this novelty and abuse of the episcopate acceptable when the appointment of a man who happened to be gay was so unacceptable?
- To the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of many in this country that the Church of England is institutionalising misogyny.
- To the silent Church of England Bishops who believe themselves to be liberal: How do you sleep?
- To the first woman to be consecrated as bishop in the Church of England: Was it worth it on these terms?
There are already Bishops in the Catholic tradition who don’t recognise the ordination of women. Why is this news more objectionable to you?
Because the church is recognising that as part of its polity rather than it being the opinions of some individual members of the Church of England.
I still don’t understand. Arrangements have been made, are being made, and will be made for Anglo Catholics who think it impossible for a woman to preside in sacraments. Why get jumpy about conservative evangelicals being provided for their consciences in a similar way?
I was just as jumpy about high church flying bishops. I don’t agree with the high church objection to women being priests or bishops. However, I find the “headship” argument considerably more offensive.
Why more offensive? It’s straight out of the pastoral epistles. Is the New Testament offensive? (answer: yes, unless you are regenerate)
It is offensive because it denies any basic equality between men and women.
The pastoral epistles were not written nor read by people who would have accepted that there is a basic equality between men and women.
But I do.
It’s quite clear to me that were we say a black bishop is existentially subordinate to a white bishop we would be making a statement which was sinful……I don’t see that saying women are existentially subordinate (a clear conflict with Paul’s teaching in Galatians 3) is any less sinful’
I’m disappointed to see Gal 3 still being used in this discussion, as it is clear from everything else that Paul writes that it is not his intention to suggest full equality between the categories listed in the verse. That liberals persist in trotting it out is a reflection of a ‘proof texting’ tendency that they rightly deplore in others. The only interpretation of the verse that is consistent with the rest of Paul’s writings is to see it as being equally saved.
When is a Catholic not a Catholic? When one complains about ‘spitting in the face of the Pope’ but wants a bishop to cater to every Protestant schism.
These are hard-hitting, entirely justified, questions. The answer to question 10 will be especially interesting. Is something better than nothing? Is lower pay better than no pay at all? I wish I knew.
Aren’t the pastoral epistles the Word of God? In which case, if we disagree with God, he’s probably right!
Stick around the blog for a while and listen to some of my preaching Tom and you’ll work out what I think about the Word of God.
Kelvin: “The pastoral epistles were not written nor read by people who would have accepted that there is a basic equality between men and women. But I do.”
So you know better than the Apostle? Very un-Anglican.
God bless in your certainty, Tom and thanks for commenting.
I suppose my question is how you can be part of the Church of England with integrity given the doctrine of the Articles, Prayer Book and Ordinal. It’s clear that headship evangelicals stand in that doctrinal tradition, even if they’re misogynist.
Tom – this may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but I’m not a member of the Church of England. I don’t have to accept the 39 Articles either. Indeed I never have done.
The Scottish Prayer Book, which I’m guessing you don’t know a huge amount about, is something which often moves me. So do the other liturgies of my church, which I guess you may know even less about.
I would posit that we know a great many things better than the Apostles. The question is about the Apostles’ spheres of competence, and whether they include the proper role of women in society.
We certainly know more about, say, astronomy than the apostles. But on matters of faith and church order, Christ gave them his Spirit and authority to write God’s Word to the church.
Jesus Christ is God’s Word. Claiming that for biblical texts is bibliolatry.
Penelope: Ps 119 uses the term ‘word’ 30 times. It does not make sense to interpret those reference as being to the second person of the Trinity.
Similarly a word search for “word of God” in the NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22word+of+god%22&qs_version=NIVUK
generates 45 hits, of which many are NOT coherent to exposit as being a reference to God, of which Acts 4:31: “After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.” is a clear example, and yes, it is ‘logos’.
Just a warning, Ender’s Shadow that I tend to delete comments with proof texts.
Please don’t insult the intelligence of my readers by arguments suggesting that the number of times a phrase appears in the New International Version invalidates other people’s beliefs either.
There are better places for such silliness.
And there’s a more extensive commenting policy here: http://thurible.net/2012/08/04/revised-commenting-policy/
Sorry Kelvin, my mistake – though I thought since you were commenting on a Church of England decision that it was fair enough to cite the formularies.
I think we Christians could be kinder to each other in the way we debate matters like this – especially on line. I feel a sense of intolerance in the way we address one another (on both sides of the debate) and that saddens me.
Penelope, the only way we can know anything at all about God is if he reveals himself to us: our minds are too creaturely, feeble and fallen to know him any other way. The Bible is his perfect revelation, as the foundational texts of the Anglican Church repeatedly affirm. Therefore, God has spoken, and it is written. That being so, if God through the apostles told me to wear bananas on my head, it wouldn’t be my place to question it. Similarly, the NT teaches and evinces only men as presbyters and overseers. Even if it is accurate to describe such a view as misogynist (which properly understood I don’t think is accurate), if that’s what God says through the apostles then that is what we should do. That is the obedience of faith. Now, this post isn’t even about that big discussion, but about the decision to consecrate one man with that view to minister to those who cannot for conscience sake submit to an unbiblical church order. It was promised in the legislation; the same legislation without the promise was unsuccessful. This is promise keeping, serving conscience and trying to keep the church together despite this major difference. It is not perfect, as if it could be – it’s trying to square the circle. But it is certainly required by the obligation of promise keeping, Christian charity, and the five guiding principles.
I’m not convinced, firstly that there is any such thing as “the Anglican Church” or secondly that whatever texts may be in common to the Anglican Churches affirm the claim of Biblical perfection. Even the 39 articles (which as has been noted are not relevant to the SEC) only assert that the scriptures contained within the Bible contain all things necessary for salvation. That’s a very long way from saying that all things within them are necessary for salvation or even that all things within them are true.
Whether there is an Anglican Church is a red herring: we’re discussing a decision made by the Chirch of England, which undoubtedly does have authoritative foundational statements of doctrine. There are many proofs of the Anglican formularies’ position on biblical perfection. I shall give just one source unless further proof is required. This from the book of homilies:
“The prayse of holy Scripture. TO a Christian man there can bee nothing either more necessarie or profitable, then the knowledge of holy Scripture, forasmuch as in it is conteyned GODS true word, setting foorth his glory, and also mans duety.
The Perfection of Holy Scripture: And there is no trueth nor doctrine necessarie for our iustification and euerlasting saluation, but that is (or may bee) drawne out of that fountaine and Well of trueth.
The knowledge of holy Scripture is necessary. Therefore as many as bee desirous to enter into the right and perfect way vnto GOD, must applie their mindes to know holy Scripture, without the which, they can neither sufficiently know GOD and his will, neither their office and duty.
I would concur with what Jo says below. The Bible may be God’s perfect revelation, but it is mediated through our fallible minds. It cannot ‘speak’ without our interpretation. Therefore I believe that you are profoundly wrong to refer to an ‘unbiblical church order’, since that is not the way I read the texts. I think you are also mistaken to say that the NT sees only men as presbyters and overseers: look at Euodia and Syntyche; and at Phoebe, the first commentator on Romans (and Paul’s patron). Women had authority in the early church, if we don’t expect to see things in the text we don’t see them; if we expect to see things we see them!
None of those women are described as presbyteros or episkopos. Phoebe is a deakonos. So there were women deacons. But that’s not disputed by evangelicals. The point of biblical inspiration is that God by his Spirit superintended their writing. That being so, what he in his providence has caused to be written through his human prophets and apostles is without defect. Saying otherwise is claiming that God is an impotent communicator. The texts that we have describe no woman as presbyter or overseer, and in fact prohibit their preaching to or exercising authority over a man. My life and church career would be much simpler if that were not so! But I can’t change the Bible, so I submit to it whether I like it or not.
Paul greets the overseers in Philippae and mentions 3 people, two of whom were women. Yes, Phoebe is described as a deacon, also the patron of Paul and there is no evidence that these were church offices, as we would understand them in the early church. Paul had enough confidence in her to send her to Rome to interpret and comment upon his letter. I did not say that the biblical text is imperfect, I said that we, its interpreters, are fallible.
All we know about Euodia and Syntyche is that they were women active in Christian ministry who had fallen out. There is no reason to connect them with the overseers (m. pl. in Greek) in chapter 1! Like these women and Phoebe, I believe we should have women in full time ministry (incl. as deacons and patrons like Phoebe), but there remains not a single instance in the NT of a woman as priest, overseer or preaching in church to men.
‘It wouldn’t be my place to question it’ – why not Tom?
Presumably you don’t believe men should have universal headship in other areas of life, the workplace, the home, schools, politics. That kind of gender prejudice would be a morally repugnant view to hold. If God demands that in the church, that would be very sad and unfortunate, but there might be two options – one could I suppose take your approach of dislocating moral feelings and saying, ‘just following orders’, or one could disobey and maintain one’s moral integrity. This integrity would be a fatal choice if you believe heaven is at stake, but who wants to live in a tyrant’s heaven if that is the price.
Happily I don’t think that this is what God really demands. If it was, I think I would not be able to take your view, moral and personal integrity is more important than obedience.
Hi Stew – ‘morals’ only have meaning because they come from God. So I believe in human dignity because God established it in creation *and has revealed it to us*. Since moral truth is derivative on God, not the other way round, if my inner moral sense differs from what God has said through his apostles, it is my moral sense that has erred, rather than God’s. Happily, the biblical teaching of men and women in complementary, not identical, roles in families (incl. the family of the church) is (I have come to see) a wonderful moral vision (I used to be a liberal Christian who thought it was obviously hateful!). If I ever think the Bible teaches something ‘immoral,’ I should pray to God for His Spirit to illuminate my mind and change my heart, that I search, apply and submit to his word in the Scriptures. Since the truth is One, true moral integrity and the true obedience of faith go hand in hand.
Would anyone come back to me on the argument that this appointment is mandated by the promise that was made both in the Five Guiding Principles and in the attendent declaration? In other words, why is it scandalous now (merely keeping a promise and commitment) while it wasn’t scandalous to make the promise in the first place?
What is scandalous now was scandalous then. I commented on it at the time.
OK – so the keeping of the promise is not scandalous, surely? Only that the promise was made and the Five Principles agreed in the first place? Two wrongs (the five principles/promise *and* breaking the promise and disregarding the principles) don’t make a right.
So why do you issue your 10 questions now?
My 10 questions relate to the current situation. My position about the legislation and the five principles has been consistent.
Surely breaking a promise to do something wrong is more moral than keeping such a promise?
One mustn’t lie to get what one wants. If the 5 Principles and the promise had not been made, the measure would have been lost (as it indeed was in 2012). I fully agree, Kelvin, you have been consistent in your opposition to the measure; I guess I’m surprised at your surprise that it has been acted upon after having been agreed months ago.
One of the reasons why the vote failed in 2012 was mutual suspicion on both sides. Liberals think that headship evangelical bishops would sack the women presbyters in their diocese (we wouldn’t); and evangelicals think the liberals would break their promises to enable us to remain in good conscience as a full part of the church. I don’t like to see that those suspicions on our part were so well-founded. Thankfully, however, the Archbishops are men of their word.
How then do you square this complementarian moral vision within the church family with (presumably) your view that conplementarian approaches would be morally repugnant in all other settings, the workplace, leadership roles in society etc? Do you just take this paradox on trust, or do you have an insight into why God supports gender equality in all other realms except the church?
Oh, and complementarianism is utter nonsense. The writers of the Hebrew Bible and the NT thought there was only one sex: Man. Woman was its imperfect manifestation. That’s why, for a man, being unmanned or feminised (e.g. by anal sex) was so abhorrent.
Penelope, if you are content to say that complementarianism is in line with the Bible, but abhorrent to you, my work here is done. If the goodness, accuracy and authority of the Bible is not recognised, I have nothing with which to engage you in debate. My soul is captive to the Word of God: Here I stand; I can do no other.
Um…Tom I’m saying exactly the opposite. The Biblical writers didn’t ‘believe’ in complementarianism because they thought there was only one sex. And it was one of the reasons why the passive sexual partner was despised (then and today). I don’t much care what people get up to with their genitalia
“I don’t much care what people get up to with their genitalia”
Oh dear – the ‘we don’t want to believe that God is interested in sexual relationships gospel’. It’s very clear that the Epistle writers respond to a degree of promiscuity somewhat similar to our own by calling on Christians to be chaste. That our generation of church goers are abandoning this belief is rather obvious, but that doesn’t make it consistent with the gospel presented in the bible. The fact that the gospels don’t have a great deal on the issue is because it wasn’t a problem in the Jewish community, though Jesus’ comments about looking lustfully = adultery is a clear indication that he wasn’t relaxed about the issue.
Obviously it’s what you think, not who you are.
Opinion precedes essence
If a Church claims to be open and inclusive, as I presume St. Mary’s does, where does it’s inclusiveness end? If it is so, then it should be able to welcome and support those who hold views different to it’s own. I hold no brief for Headship churches or those against the ordination of women or women in any positions of authority, but I do feel strongly that the circle needs to be made large enough to include those who think differently to me. As we stand before the throne of grace, I find that I am close to those who disagree with me, our solidarity in sin, than I find comfortable, but being discomforted is surely a sign of the Holy Spirit?
I think that we welcome all who come in peace who don’t threaten or harm others. It seems clear to me that the headship doctrine harms others.
Most churches whether they claim to be inclusive or not have to deal with people with different views. That is the nature of being human.
Trying to be an inclusive church certainly does have limits though.
We have lots of different views in St Mary’s that are often forcefully expressed. However, I think we do have an ethos which would preclude (for example) racist views, sexist views and homophobic views from being promoted or acted upon here. And I think that there are many who would delight this is so.