Robert Wright Seen&Unseen Marsha de Cordova: the personal experiences driving her passionate politics
Lorraine Cavanagh Church Times Women in the Church: What do ‘micro-aggressions’ mean?
Kristin Breuss Women and the Church Why I Support the Not Equal Yet Campaign
”Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. I can’t find that in my Bible. But I’ve read of the wonderful principle of the armies of the French Revolution: ”Sois mon frere ou je te tue” – Be my brother or I’ll kill you. But now in the CofE it’s to be ”Acknowledge my authority because I’m now in charge or we’ll chuck you out”. And when we’ve chucked out all the traditionalists, Evangelical and Catholic, people will flock to our churches again. As the Duke of Wellington is said to have replied to a woman who greeted him as ”Mr Jones”: ”If you believe… Read more »
It is not the traditionalists, Evangelicals or Catholic, that are the problem, but the bigots, racists, and antifemales and anti-gays, some very overtly, some much more subtle and “nice”. Like those bishops and priests who say, so nicely, “Of course I value your ministry and your love for your parishioners, but you are really just a lay-person dressed up as a priest, so I can never receive Communion from you, because it is not consecrated by a man, nor concelebrate with you. My ministry is valid, yours is invalid.” Think about how hurtful it is when Roman Catholics talk about… Read more »
Ultimately all this depends on one’s theological understanding of what “ordination” actually is. What is the ontological status, function, and role of an ordained priest/pastor/minister/vicar? This is where there is division in the alliance that is Anglicanism.
Whatever view one might hold, ordination is not a “right” or a “privilege.” Ordination is not a matter of our modern notions of justice, equality, political correctness, or human rights. No one, female or male, has the “right” to ordination. We ought not apply secular understandings of our culture or our era in judging its “fairness.”
Ultimately all this depends on what place one gives to the Bible, and one’s reading of it.
No one has talked of a ‘right’ to ordination – that’s a straw man.
I wrote: “We ought not apply secular understandings of our culture or our era in judging its “fairness.””
And: “Ultimately all this depends on one’s theological understanding of what “ordination” actually is.”
You also wrote ‘ordination is not a “right” or a “privilege.”’
I questioned ‘“Ultimately all this depends on one’s theological understanding of what “ordination” actually is”’, because surely our understanding of what ordination is depends (partly or entirely, depending on your tradition) on what the Bible says about it.
Not very much, Janet. The only Christian priest in the New Testament is that of Christ, and Christians as a body derived from Christ. Catholics can fail to see that the priesthood of the body is fundamental to that of the individual priest, while many Evangelicals barely understand priesthood at all.
That’s just not accurate, Allan. Catholics recognise the difference between the priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood:
We recognise the universal priesthood of the People of God, but there also an ordained priesthood. Finally, there is the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
That’s not what I said. The priesthood of the college of presbyters is not the same as the priesthood of the body, but neither is it separate from it.
Indeed, according to the scriptures we are ALL priests unto God – “In white robes arrayed us, kings and priests made us….” albeit in various different ways. We all minister God’s love to the world around us, and worship him by the ministry of our labours…… or at least, we should do. After all, a qualified minister is only one person, who can’t be everywhere at once in a parish, or, indeed, have all the gifts, skills and talents needed.
‘A qualified minister’ suggests that ordination is little more than the culmination of acquiring some specialist training which is then celebrated in a ritualised commissioning. A very Protestant view, if I might say so. Of course a priest can’t be everywhere at once or have all the gifts. Indeed, the ‘omnicompetent’ priest fools himself and disables the laity. Classical Anglicanism has always seen more in ordination than community delegation or the merely functional. Ordination gives the priest authority to make present both the priesthood of Christ, our great high priest, and the priesthood of his body, the Church. The good… Read more »
John, Protestants and Catholics may be closer on this than appears at first blush. The Anglican-Reformed report, God’s Reign and Our Unity, states that “Priests exercise their priestly ministry neither apart from the priesthood of the whole body, nor by derivation from the priesthood of the whole body, but by virtue of their participation, in company with the whole body, in the priestly ministry of the risen Christ.”
Graduates in the school of make-up-your-own-ecclesiology take note!
Yes. The idea of a Christian sacrificial priesthood cannot be found in the New Testament.
In the New Testament, ordination is the laying on of hands as people were commissioned for various roles or tasks – elders, deacons, apostles/missionaries. That’s why I said ‘our understanding of what ordination is depends (partly or entirely, depending on your tradition)’ – in all traditions, we still administer the laying on of hands at ordination. And we still have deacons and presbyters/priests, although our understanding of those roles has changed.
“The idea of a Christian sacrificial priesthood cannot be found in the New Testament.” Nor any form of priesthood it seems. God’s Reign and Our Unity – the 1984 report of the Anglican-Reformed International Commission states: “All attempts to read off one divinely authorised form of ordained ministry from the NT are futile.”
Yes indeed, and the Church of England seeks to respect and permit various Anglican traditions as they reflect understandings of Scripture.
We do. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with those of any tradition who are dogmatic that their understanding is the Right One, and with those of any tradition who discriminate against people of different traditions. That includes, of course, those who discriminate against female priests.
‘”Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. I can’t find that in my Bible.’ Can’t you?
You certainly won’t find unlimited freedom of choice, equal rights in all things, unencumbered self-determination, a presumption of the will of God as identified with one’s own goals, or pragmatic reasoning.
Not in the rationalist, secularist, state-enthroning, enemy-obliterating sense of the French Revolution. There’s the glorious liberty of the children of God, praise God, of course, which is also a slavery to obedience. There is the obliteration of difference in the economy of salvation, for male and female, slave and free, Jew and Greek, praise God. But that’s rather different to a coercive state-enforced elimination of the inevitable differences of wealth and success which accrue when people are free to work hard, choose how to, and retain (or freely give) the dividends of their labours. There is the fraternity shared by… Read more »
Yes … all three words at the heart of the Christian and the Bible – but their meaning utterly transformed there.
Beautifully expounded, my friend.
There’s a Guardian article today titled “UK populists mix faith and politics” which might fit well in this list of essays. The name Paul Marshall appears, although his links into Lambeth Palace are not described.
The 106th ABC has to be a woman. The argument that it cannot be because of The Society (etc) is fundamentally flawed. The Society is part of the problem. It is an urgent task to end the practice of ordaining men who are opposed to the ordination of women. It’s time to stop throwing fuel on the fire of the institutionalised misogyny. If we want to continue to be the National Church we have to take action on this matter. If General Synod is unable or unwilling because of a spineless House and College of Bishops then we shall ask… Read more »
Of course the next Archbishop will be woman! Absolutely guaranteed.
The next Archbishop of Canterbury will be a man! Absolutely guaranteed.
You simply do not have the authority to say that. If there is one point that is clear, ABC 106 needs to be a woman. It’s time for us to lay all this sinful patriarchal misogyny at The Foot of The Cross.
How do you and William (above) have the authority to say what you have, and I don’t?
I never said “absolutely guaranteed”. That is the difference.
So William is wrong. Why didn’t you criticise him and not me? (Your misandry is showing!)
Oh please! What pretentious and incoherent arrogance.
My ‘absolutely guaranteed’ statement was an example of hyperbole.
But my personal opinion is that the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be a woman with a reduced role in terms of the Anglican Communion.
The Canterbury CNC has been reformulated to include representatives of the Anglican Communion. Given that much of the Communion does not accept the ministry of women it is unlikely that they will cast their votes for a female candidate. With Uganda and some Caribbean dioceses supporting the retention of the death penalty for gay men I don’t think a female archbishop would go down awfully well with them. So although I wouldn’t want to offer a guarantee, I think it highly unlikely that we’ll see a woman ABC anytime soon.
Phil Groves posted here a while back that the Anglican communion reps on the CNC may well be more progressive in their thinking than that. He should know – and he worked it all out quite logically I thought.
Thank you. I was going to make the same reference. The international Anglican Communion is a resilient and progressive body.
See Phil Groves on https://viamedia.news/2025/01/06/the-archbishop-of-canterbury-and-the-anglican-communion/ And his comments in the discussion of that piece
The Canterbury CNC had Communion representation before. What is different this time is that has been expanded to five Communion representatives, and at the same time the diocesan representation has (at the suggestion of the diocese) been reduced to three. There has been much analysis of who the Communion five might support and we shouldn’t imagine that they will vote en bloc. The five come from the five regions of the Communion — Africa, Americas, Middle East and Asia, Oceania, Europe. The provinces of several of these regions mostly ordain women, and others are split. However, it’s quite possible that… Read more »
The matter of Church doctrine on marriage is likely to figure more highly amongst the selection criteria from the five regions than that of women ministers/priests.
Perhaps, but broadly the same answer applies.
Fr Dean – You must be aware that Uganda ordained women years before the C of E and accepted that women could be bishops? White people in GAFCON have persuaded them not to act on that. The Ugandan Church has always opposed the death penalty. Horrifically, there is significant support for the horrendous anti-gay legislation in Uganda and by most of GAFCON, but GAFCON provinces will not have a rep on the CNC as they have boycotted the ACC and the Communion representatives must be ACC members. I am interested which Caribbean dioceses seek the ‘retention’ of the death penalty… Read more »
Effectively you’re saying that all ministers with a different conviction must leave. I.E complementarian evangelicals and conservative Anglo-Catholics have no place in the Church of England. To theological conservatives looking on, this definitely will be the argument after same-sex marriages are fully conducted within the Church of England. Non-affirming ministers will no longer be welcome, it’s a matter of time. Anyone can see a mile off that despite repeated statements that people are seeking inclusion it always ends up with exclusion for those who don’t agree. It’s curious that people claim that theological conservatives are bigoted and hateful for holding… Read more »
The cancer of ordaining men opposed to women’s ministry has laid siege to our Church for over thirty years. It’s time to operate on the cancer. It’s not a matter of mirrors. It’s a matter of the narrative ark of justice. In the 1820s people, who dared to call themselves Christians, argued from the texts of scripture for the preservation of slavery. Those who argue against the ordination of women, (and, inter alia, against same sex marriage and the full inclusion of the LGBTQ+ communities in the life of the church), are using, interpreting, and abusing scripture to defend their… Read more »
Yet Christ still regarded sexual immorality as sinful to a Jewish audience without qualification and regarded marriage as being the union between a man and a woman. There’s good theological room for holding to a complementarian position in Scripture. We shouldn’t be Christianizing secular arguments in the church, but we should engage with the Scriptures and argue theologically. Our mission should be to seek to follow Christ, not to follow secular society. In respect to slavery, there’s no justification in Scripture for the chattel slave trade and there’s a reason why evangelical Christians played a pivotal role in ending it.… Read more »
Your use of the language of “secular” and “traditional” is both hugely debatable and selective. I note you have decided my position is a secular re write of scripture. Thank you for that. The three synoptic Gospels teach us there is no marriage in heaven. And St Paul teaches us there is neither male nor female in Christ. While Jesus in the gospels does not condem us. I note your persistence in perpetuating a system of first and second class humans and Christians. Paul writes in his magisterial conclusion to Romans Chapter Eight that “nothing in all creation can separate… Read more »
A strange reading of scripture. But nothing surprises me. My reading is that there isn’t marriage in heaven because angels don’t marry (and we don’t go there) and all can be radically transformed by the love of God in Christ Jesus. The idea that the love of God doesn’t change us is to deny the power of the gospel to make all things new.
That’s an interesting point, Adrian – angels don’t marry, and presumably are sexless? I’ve genuinely never heard that slant on the verse before, understanding instead that Jesus was referring to those of us mortals who’ve been redeemed. That seems to be the interpretation in the context of the Sadducees’ question to him. (How ironic that they didn’t believe in the resurrection anyway.) “We don’t go there” – do you mean we don’t discuss it, or don’t go to eternity? (I’m deliberately not speculating on the nature of eternity – our finite minds simply can’t comprehend it.) I once did illustration… Read more »
Well it’s always possible that all of us may need to think about the text more deeply, rather than dismissing someone else’s experience of the text as “strange”.
The assurance of Romans 8 is for those who have repented and turned to Christ. Paul in Romans tells us to put our sinful desires to death in chapter 6, and that we shouldn’t seek to continue in sin. The assurance is the assurance for the Christian who has counted the cost and trusted in Christ for righteousness by faith (Romans 4). That by the way is for everyone who seems to follow after Christ. There’s no second class we’re all called to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Him. That looks different for every Christian given… Read more »
I do wonder what Jesus would have made of St Paul’s letter to the Romans if he could have been bothered to read it.
As I recall it, weren’t some of Wilberforce’s most virulent opponents, wishing to retain the slave trade, certain evangelical Christians in Bristol – who owned the ships which worked the ‘golden triangle’? That has a very familiar ring to it still…..
Correct. And therein is the parallel with today. People who interpret scripture to justify not ordaining women and treating members of the LGBTQ+ communities as second class are reading and interpreting scripture in exactly the same way as the “Christians” who opposed Wilberforce and argued for the continuation of slavery. As is evidenced on this thread
I read about His encounter with the Samarian woman at the well and draw a different conclusion. She was living with a man outside of marriage but that had zero effect on how Jesus treated her. It is possible to argue that only traditional marriage isn’t sinful, but the second step of arguing that such sin should affect how we treat people seems hard to justify as Jesus Himself was relaxed about the marital status of the Samarian woman.
I think we make too much of the supposedly sinful status of the Samaritan woman.
Not only did Jesus treat her with respect, but her fellow villagers listened to what she had to say, went out to see what she was talking about, and discussed it with her afterwards respectfully.
She is also portrayed by John as having some theological awareness.
Like Mary Magdalen, perhaps the Samaritan woman is another women once labelled shameful by Christian tradition who’se story needs to be re-evaluated.
The reason for her loss of so many husbands was likely to have been a chronic gynaecological compassing like that of the woman who dared to touch Jesus’robe. There is no implication that the man she currently lives with is her lover. He is probably a kindly relative who has taken her in.
Or I wonder if she might have been a Marjery Kempe type woman, a person who rejected, or was rejected by, various husbands because she prioritised her religious life.
I believe it is an ‘arc of justice’ — and the arc of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection aren’t reducible to a whig account of history.
Thank you: my reference to “Ark” was nevertheless the deliberate mindful of other narrative connotations.
And the narrative ark of justice in scripture is deeper than your dismissal of a Whig reading of history.
Tell me, what you see the role, functions and duties of a “priest” (not “presbyteros” which in Greek simply means elder) but “hierus” (those charged with overseeing sacred rites). The Latin word for “priest” is “sacerdos” which corresponds to the Greek word “hiereus.” Those you dismiss as traditionalists believe their specific (“sacerdos”) priesthood – not the universal priesthood – is the expression of God ordained sacred rites as channels of God’s grace promoting sanctification. That this person is a mediator between God and people during these sacred rites (“in persona Christi”). They accept this role was restricted to men by Christ… Read more »
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. ” – 1 Timothy 2:5-6
There are no priests. Jesus took that role and made it exclusive to Himself. And, lest there be any doubt of that, St Paul never described himself as a priest – only as an Apostle. If some early Christians described themselves as priests that only shows that the error arose early – it does not show that there are priests after the earthly ministry of Jesus.
That’s according to your reading of Scripture and your understanding of the history of how the early Church developed. Not everyone in the Anglican Church agrees with you. That’s the point I’m making. This is all covered in the report from 2005 “Women Bishops in the Church of England?” As for St Paul … He certainly saw his role as an Apostle as a “priestly service”, so that the “offering” of the Gentiles may be “sanctified.” Read 1 Corinthians 10:14-21 and Romans 15:15-17. The Greek words Paul uses are: “hierourgeo” – to be a temple-worker, i.e., officiate as a priest; “ierourgounta” –… Read more »
I think this argument conflates what was two distinct vocations and understandings. On the one hand there is the vocation of the temple priest, who can be called a holy man. Totally separate from this there is the vocation of the wandering “mendicant” holy man, such as Jesus’ “apostles”. This was a well known religious vocation right across the middle east and into India at the time, and Jesus’ instructions to his apostles/disciples closely matches what is known about this vocation and lifestyle from other sources. There was an expectation of celibacy (eunuch), poverty and obedience. (These people lived a… Read more »
To what extent can being a Temple priest (כֹּהֵן, kohen) be called a “vocation”? It was an hereditary caste, the birthright of the male descendants of Zadok (the Zadokites or Sadducees), a branch of the descendants of Aaron, itself a branch of the tribe of Levi. To them alone belonged the right to kill animals as sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple. Presumably to be a Temple priest the primary skill needed was that of a butcher. Does the New Testament ever refer to a leader of the Christian community as a priest (ἱερεύς hiereus)? I don’t think so. Christ is… Read more »
Simon It is a valid question as to whether a hereditary role can be described as a vocation. Perhaps “role” might have been a better word to use. Thank you But apart from that I think we are both making a similar point. Christian tradition often conflates and confuses four very different roles, those of overseer of the local community (bishop), liturgical officiant (priest?) mendicant healer/teacher (apostle or messenger), and student of Jesus teaching (disciple). We need to be more careful and nuanced in our use of these terms, and to resist the idea that only the 12 apostles and… Read more »
Did Jesus think he was a priest?
What evidence is there that Jesus intended to establish a hieratical priesthood, let alone to restrict it to men?
Zero?
Now, now ….
Read the opening chapters in this report from 2005:
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/gs1568-women-on-the-episcopate-a-report-from-the-house-of-bishops.pdf
Brilliant!
So you also deny the legitimacy of the three fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon in the Church of England?
No. I accept that the C of E legitimately has bishops, priests, and deacons. It would be absurd to say that we can only have or do what the New Testament describes the early church having or doing. We also have organists, Sunday school teachers, and churchwardens, which are not described in the New Testament. What I am saying is that there is no evidence Jesus intended to establish a sacerdotal priesthood, or that our priests represent Jesus in a way different to that of any faithful Christian. What we priests do represent is the authority of the Church. And,… Read more »
The Anglican-Reformed report sees the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the baptized both deriving from Christ, but in different ways. In the case of the former, not as an individual, but in the exercise of her ministry, supremely the Eucharist, in which she speaks and acts in the name of the Church and in the name of Christ to the Church.
Some like to describe this as ‘sacerdotal’ – and there is a certain legitimacy in that – but it’s a term not without taint from its historical associations!
I would agree that the Church of England has every right to proclaim a three fold ministry. What I would question is your derivation of such ministry from New Testament sources. Priests and three fold ministry came late to the table. The early church had only two levels, bishop and deacon. Before that in Jesus time there is no evidence of an intention to set up a priestly order. Within the hugely wide variety of Jewish religious expression in Palestine at the time, Jesus ministry was much more like a mystery religion pattern of teacher and disciples than a temple… Read more »
And when “priests” did appear on the scene they were presbyters — elders — not hiereis (the sacrificing priests of the Temple or indeed in pagan religions). Only subsequently were the latter called by the English word “priests”.
Thanks Simon, that is helpful guidance.
As in other posts, I think it is really important to get back to the original understandings and meaning of these roles, rather than risk projecting anachronistic understandings backwards. But it is difficult to do that when these words and meanings pass from Greek to Latin to English, and the same word in English is then used for different religious role constructs
When did “priests” first appear in this Christian “elder” context, and at that time did they have authority in their own right, or was it derived from the bishop?
The English Church did not exist before 597 of course. (The Church may have existed in these islands, but it was not English.) The word priest is recorded quite early as the translation of presbyter, certainly before 800. I think (but am open to correction) that the Vulgate, which would have been the bible version used maintains a distinction betwee the OT sacerdos and the NT presbyter. The OED suggests (see below) that by about AD 200 the word sacerdos was sometimes used as a synonym of presbyter. The OED’s earliest quotation for priest, or rather preost, is early Old… Read more »
Very interesting. Thank you.
So going back to Happy Jack’s original post which started this fascinating conversation. His proposed understanding of Christian priesthood, which is essentially sacerdotal, is not the understanding of Christian priesthood to be found in the original threefold order of ministry, which is a presbyterial/elder/supervisor construct.
Although to be fair the understandings have morphed and overlapped over the centuries, hence the confusion, and the possibility of making vastly different arguments from the same scriptural texts.
Thank you, Simon and Simon.
‘Sacerdotal’ in its developed sense has a legitimacy which hiereis does not.
Although I would hesitate to use sacerdos, it has the merit of ‘rescuing’ the Eucharist from becoming a one-dimensional fellowship meal by emphasising its sacrificial nature – an aspect which presiding versus populum tends to flatten.
The CofE is coy about expressing this liturgically, the Church in Wales and the Methodists less so: “Made one with him, we offer you these gifts and with them ourselves, a single, holy, living sacrifice.”
BTW. I’m not advocating going back to presiding ad orientem.
One further thought, to illustrate the confusion that can be caused as these words and constructs are moved across languages and across regions.
It seems that sacerdos is a Latin word, implying sacred or holy, often translated priest, and used to designated Jewish temple type worship.
Of course the equivalent Hebrew word is kadeshim, from kadesh=holy. But this word is translated as prostitute by the NRSV, because of the sexual cult practises in the temple until Josiah’s reformation
Sacerdos as prostitute. I know sacerdos carries baggage, but on this alone it should to be in the Anglican canon.
More seriously, it’s good to hear some arguments from the first five Christian centuries – a canonical source for Anglicans. Much of this thread has been sola scriptura – as much a dead end for the theology of the presbyterate as it is for Christian initiation. Although in today’s CofE perhaps inevitable.
That’s very helpful. However, arguably there is indeed a NT three-fold order of ministry. 1 Tim 5:3-16 describes a register of widows. This seems partly to have been a matter of supporting them – but in that case why not enrol destitute young widows with children to feed? The qualifications for being enrolled as a widow include being active in all kinds of good work, and persevering night and day in prayer. There seems to be no means testing for the role, though of course many widows would have been poor. vv11-12 imply that being on the widows’ register entails… Read more »
Thanks Janet. My take on this is related to life stages, a subject most clearly to be found in Hindu teaching today, but I think there are hints of this to be discovered in the NT if you look for it. I can think of some texts alluding to this written by greek travellers into what is now Pakistan dated around 1-200CE, so it is entirely possible this sort of thinking was around in NT contexts a bit further west The four stages of life are student, householder, greybeard (or it’s female equivalent) and recluse. After education the first stage… Read more »
I think the fact that Paul goes straight on to discuss the payment of elders indicates the payment of widows was not simply charity. They were the third order of ministry.
Interesting. Were they a separate, gendered, order of ministry, or simply women being appointed alongside the men into the existing orders of elder and/or deacon. But it’s a fascinating question in either case.
What evidence is there that Jesus made the role of priesthood exclusive to himself as you claim he did? Did he even talk about priesthood?
No, he didn’t. That’s the point. We can’t claim he intended to set up a hieratic priesthood, let alone to restrict such a priesthood to men – which is what Happy Jack claimed.
I’m sorry, the question should have been addressed to Kate Keates.
Well that depends on whether or not you think institutionalised misogyny is a valid basis for the life of our Church. I don’t think it is.
Actually, it goes back to Jesus Christ, the Twelve and their successors for nigh on 2000 years.
The C of E made the decision to ordain women because it perceived no theological basis for not doing so. The church has spoken. Those disagreeing with this change are always free to leave and find a church which chimes with their conviction. It is logical therefore to conclude that to continue to ordain men who disagree with what our church has decided is theologically absurd.
They’re also free to remain as accommodation has been made for them.
It does lead to some rather bizarre conundra though doesn’t it? I was at a service of evensong and benediction last month at which a Society priest knelt in adoration before a host consecrated that morning by a woman.
But it is an illogical and non- theological accommodation. If it makes no sense then it should now be abolished. Just claiming it is there does not make it right.
Gareth. As Kristin Breuss quotes in her article “The Church of England is fully and unequivocally committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all, without reference to gender”. It has done this while still allowing those who disagree with the ordination of women a place in the church. A church led by a woman archbishop would be no different. No one ‘with a different conviction must leave’.
Yet if there’s no space for complementarian ministry they are ultimately excluded as they cannot in conscience serve under a female bishop. The Five Guiding Principles allow for complementarians to continue in ministry in the church with good conscience. Ultimately those who disagree are ousted out if this was rescinded. I believe this will happen when same-sex marriages are fully permitted in the Church of England also. People will decide that people with traditional beliefs should leave. It’s important to remember that women bishops passed precisely because provision was made for those who disagreed. Retrospectively removing this conscience provision surely… Read more »
A few would leave but most would not want to leave the parsonage, stipend and the pension scheme behind. Where would they go that would afford them similar benefits and the advantages of being part of an established church. All the evidence is that the ‘establishment’ are heartily fed up with the CofE so that advantage might not pertain for very much longer but whilst it remains it is a pull factor.
The Five Guiding Principles were not part of the package. Such provision came later so your argument won’t hold. The fact is we have indeed ordained women to all three orders and have at the same time kept complementarians on board. You seem to me to be scaremongering here.
I think you are thinking about the ‘other’ set of five guiding principles – this lot were part of the package. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-01/gs-misc-1076-women-in-the-episcopate-house-of-bishops-declaration_july14.pdf
“when same-sex marriages are fully permitted in the Church of England.” This side of the eschaton?
It might actually precipitate the eschaton!
I’m sure those who oppose same sex marriage will still be allowed to stay as long as they play along, pretend every view is valid and don’t speak and act with too much conviction. The more outspoken opponents of women’s ordination and same sex marriage are already being squeezed out thorough insufficient provision.
As are increasing numbers of Church attendees.
In terms of equality there has to be a line. We all agree discrimination in ministry on grounds of race is unacceptable these days, despite being “traditionally” acceptable to some. So the question is, where do we draw the line. Personally I think that discrimination on all grounds in the Equality Act is unacceptable – sex, race, gender identity, sexual orientation etc. it’s clear and easy – we shouldn’t discriminate. With respect, the problem with your position, despite being sincerely held, is that where the line is drawn becomes somewhat arbitrary. How do you justify some forms of discrimination but… Read more »
I think it’s curious to see how you are making your argument. It seems that it is made primarily with recourse to secular arguments rather than with reference to God’s nature and what God has spoken. As someone with a classical Protestant view I don’t think that secular arguments made without consideration of God should be the final authority of faith. If you think a complementarian position is wrong and shouldn’t be advocated for in the church then your case is better made theologically. In respect to Scripture, I disagree with you, texts have meanings and words have meanings and… Read more »
It would be a cause for celebration if the next Archbishop of Canterbury is a woman but “has to be” is too strong because it implies positive discrimination which is both unlawful and, IMO, morally wrong.
Thank you. My use of language is a reflection on the depth of the mess we are in. Almost all of it by men.
My suggestion is to return to the Scriptural method of casting lots.
Reading the lesson for S.Matthias yesterday the same thought occurred to me.
Lorraine Cavanagh accurately depicts British middle-class fragility at work in the CofE. I’m at a loss, however, to find in her piece an answer to the question ‘what do micro-aggressions mean?’
This and the earlier item about the Secretary General asking – only verbally of course- for the low down on the refusal to grant leave for a CCM to a female complainant outside the time frame are two of the most dismal threads to have appeared on TA that I can remember. The murky world of behind the scenes fixing rarely comes to light so clearly, … at least Sir Stephen Males held firm. The heated discussion that followed at times showed no sympathy or empathy for the female complainant, or any acceptance that it would have been in the… Read more »
Middle-class fragility is not the sole province of women and I didn’t mean to imply that it was. As for clarity on micro-aggressions, one would expect an article’s title to bear some resemblance to its content, that is all. I read a lot about outright aggression and ill-disguised infighting, but little about what micro-aggressions actually look like, feel like, or mean to those on the receiving end. That would have been helpful for me to understand.
I can’t speak for Susanna(no ‘h’) but there is a useful Wikipedia entry on micro aggressions, setting out the origin of the term, criticism of its validity, and offering various examples in the context of race, disability, gender among others. It can be unintentional. In my experience much of it might be seen as ‘simply’ point scoring, or one-upmanship. But it is often subtly demeaning and can be corrosive over time.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let nobody pretend that driving traditionalists out of the CofE will lead to growth. The Church in Wales makes no provision for traditionalists, and its membership figures are so bad that they have been kept secret since 2019. As to a female ABC, she could be very good, she could be absolutely awful. I can’t see that she would make any difference to the working of the Society. Perhaps we can pray for Fr Luke, shortly to be ordained bishop of Richborough, an outstandingly kind and decent pastor. And let us pray for… Read more »
So are you really saying that the C of E has a duty to treat women less favourably than men to avoid driving the traditionalists out ….
Did I really say that? Good heavens! But as for ”micro-aggression”, it seems to me that it is basically discourtesy – or even oafishness – and lack of respect for the feelings of other people, especially those who are different to oneself. Unfortunately, those subject to such discourtesy can then find themselves looking for reason to take offence. I’m sure that the tears of the bishop of London arose from genuine hurt feelings. But what about the tears of that other woman who almost became bishop of London – Paula Vennells?
Quite what ‘mutual flourishing’ means in a church that allows one group to legally discriminate in its employment practice solely on grounds of gender against another group that the Church of England has declared should be able to exercise ministry at every level of its life with complete equality, has always escaped me. That does not mean I want one anyone driven out. I just don’t think the present arrangement is in anyway mutual or actually enables the flourishing of all. It just doesn’t.
Quite. The regular playing of victim card by anti-female brigade is very tedious. They can continue to be pure in their own parishes, but no more sidelining of women in the church as a whole to pander to their prejudices.
Bishop Jill Duff seems quite happy to serve under her diocesan bishop who doesn’t recognise her orders. Can you explain how this prevents her from ‘flourishing” and exercising an equal ministry? What can’t she do that Philip North can?
The imbalance of power between a diocesan and a suffragan is very different to that experienced by a candidate for ministry for example.
Your comment has nothing to do with my question. What can a woman bishop not do that a man can? (even when her boss doesn’t recognise her). It sounds like complete equality to me.
‘Bishop Jill seems quite happy’. How do you know? Ordained women in the CofE have to find their own ways to live and work in a church where others are legally allowed to reject the validity of their ministry. They are still expected, under the ‘Guiding Principles’, to respect those who do this in the language of ‘mutual flourishing’. You and I will never know what that is like Fr David – as your comment rather reveals.
Surely Bishop Jill has the freedom to apply for a position where she is not subjected to the rejection of her ministry by her own diocesan bishop. It seems very odd a woman bishop would tolerate such a ridiculous situation unless she is happy with it.
But why should she even have to! In any case this discrimination runs right through the CofE Fr David at every level. The CofE declares her ministry to be entirely equal to a man’s and then makes arrangements that state otherwise. For one simple reason you have not had to face this in your ministry – and nor have I.
It’s not “discrimination” – you’ll find exemptions in many secular organisations where good reason exists to make distinguishing between men and women justifiable in delivering a service.
I do not know what organisations or legal exemptions you have in mind but the CofE is not one of them – having declared its ministry and leadership open to women and men equally. But having made that decision it then immediately put in place employment legislation allowing local churches to discriminate against women (not men note). It also appointed bishops who will not ordain their own clergy if they are women, but who still expect them to take the oath of canonical obedience to them, and to ‘flourish’. And bishops who will not receive communion from fellow bishops either… Read more »
It would seem perfectly reasonable for clergy to belong to a part of the Church like The Society which upholds an only-male priesthood. It’s when members seep into the wider church to deliberately attend a service conducted by a woman that an offensive provocation occurs. I wouldn’t expect a woman to refuse communion from a priest because he happens to be a man. Members of The Society should be allowed to ‘flourish’ in their small corner of the Church. But appointing members as diocesan bishops is completely absurd.
That is not the same as denying that women should be ordained, or even have been ordained.
The question is not whether it is discrimination or not. It very clearly is discrimination.
The questions are whether such actual discrimination is authorised and legal, and whether such actual discrimination is a good idea
well I can tell you that Ruth Bushyager was extremely surprised when presiding at Chi Cathedral to find that neither her Diocesan, nor the other suffragan, would take communion from her. You could say that she was very naive to expect otherwise, given that they are both “Society”, but it was still a very public demonstration of how they viewed the validity of her ministry.
Should people not make their consciences visible to the world? Or should they “go along, to get along”? You see it as a personal slight; it wasn’t.
They were fully robed up (of course) just to make themselves conspicuous, & their consciences were all too plain.
By the way the exhibition in chi cathedral to ‘celebrate’ 30yrs of female ordination was great piece of misdirection. No mention of implacable opposition of every bishop of chi from Kemp onwards.
Could the pernicious theological conservatism of Chichester be a direct link and a clear and present danger to safeguarding ? A history of cover up as demonstrated in the IICSA report , is a demonstration of the overarching need for Option 4 and independence in safeguarding. Neanderthal patriarchal attitudes towards women is a likely indicator of misuse of power and control and could by certain individuals directly impact attitudes both overt and covert towards the responses to spiritual abuse bullying CSA and sexual harassment. The amount of power The Society wields behind the scenes in its bailiwicks can be pernicious… Read more »
Sadly for both Bishop Jill and Bishop Ruth their choice is Hobson’s really isn’t it? I’m also sure they are regularly told not to rock the boat as they are truly blessed to have risen so far – and this will be by other women as well.I don’t know much about Chi Cathedral, but I wonder whether some poor suffragans are brought in as the token woman to make things look less unjust? I started following TA a while ago trying to work out why some of my fellow Anglicans were not working towards ending discrimination against others not like… Read more »
Susanna I too wonder whether I should remain Anglican. And like you I am not sure why some of my fellow Anglicans are not working towards ending discrimination against others not like themselves. So it is I wonder why Bishop Jill is an “outspoken opponent of the introduction of blessings for same-sex couples in the Church of England”, and has continuously voted for discrimination.
Unfortunately none of it is quick and easy is it? I’m not much of a ‘mitre follower’ but , sadly, women can discriminate too. When I was still working some of the cases I found particularly painful were abusers who themselves had been particularly badly abused when they themselves were children and had no agency.
Anyone old enough to remember Eric Linklater’s ‘ Position At Noon’ will have read a fictional account of tracing evil back through generations
Ordain young fogeys from St Stephen’s House?
When the Churches of Uganda and Kenya accepted women as priests, with the understanding that all priests could be bishops, they made no provision at all for dissenters and managed to grow.
True, and they may well adopt a similar position with respect to SSM’s.
I hesitate to wade in to an argument which has been going on for decades, if not millennia. My views will have zero impact on anything. But let me distinguish: As I have repeatedly said, quoting St Augustine, on matters of science Christians make themselves look ridiculous if they ignore what scientists discover. Anybody who truly thinks the world was created in 7 days does a great disservice to the gospel. I hope everybody on TA would agree to that. Similarly, our concept of creation has to take account of scientific discoveries of evolution. Similar arguments for all kinds of… Read more »