On July 9th, when many of us will find our current problems to be a vague and distant memory (I hope), this year’s York session of the General Synod will begin. Of the topics up for discussion, the issue of women bishops is a biggie. The problem lies within striking a balance between those who believe it is discriminatory not to allow women to be bishops (and illogical, since women have been being ordained as priests in England since 1994) and those for whom the idea of a female bishop goes against what the Bible teaches about the roles of men and women. Confusingly, and irritatingly, there isn’t even one central question, but several. For example: can women perform the tasks of a bishop? And crucially, would their acts as a bishop be seen as valid?
Current beliefs in social equality state that women have every right to be bishops. If women can hold high positions in government or business, there is no reason why they should not take similar posts within the Church. Furthermore, to deny them this position is unreasonable in a theological sense: if women can be priests then there is no good reason for bishopric being denied of them, since the same principles of headship apply to the priesthood as to the episcopacy. Is it time for the abolition of the so-called ‘stained-glass ceiling’?
However, like it or not, there are simply plenty of people in the Church today who aren’t comfortable with the idea of female priests, let alone bishops. This is not a case of misogyny, but of moral qualms about the validity of ministration from a female. The Bible contains many examples of passages which imply, or state explicitly, the inferiority of women. After all, the fall of Man is the result of Eve’s weakness, and many people see this as a clear case of sexism. Those who oppose women bishops draw attention to passages in the New Testament, which clearly indicate that women should not hold positions of authority in the Church.
Looking to the Bible, however, is not going to answer all our questions. Just as there are passages in Paul’s letters which seemingly condemn women to servitude and inferiority for all eternity, there are other passages in which he commends women and recognises their importance in the Church in his time. The crux of the matter is that we do not know what roles women played in the early Church; scripture does not provide the answers we need. Those who oppose female bishops on the grounds that the Bible does not allow women to hold positions of authority are, therefore, finding it difficult to present a solid argument. No wonder the authorities in the Church of England are currently flummoxed.
With these uncertainties, some vicars have threatened a return to Rome should the new legislation be pushed through. Even those who support women bishops in theory are beginning to reject the idea in favour of maintaining some semblance of unity in the Church.
The issue boils down to three main points. Firstly, are women capable of performing the role of a bishop? The answer to this must be yes, since there is no way in which women are incapable physically or intellectually of performing the tasks of a bishop.
The second question is: do women have the right to be bishops? Well, actually, no. Men and women have the right to become head teachers, to manage businesses, to lead governments and to serve as officers in the armed forces. However, nobody – man or woman – has the ‘right’ to lead the Church. If somebody seeks office in the Church, they must do so because they feel called by God. To claim that anyone has the ‘right’ to a position in the Church is to introduce a secular argument and use it to distort the context into which it is being implanted. Bishops should believe in God unreservedly. If one really does believe in God, then they should see the position as a privilege and a calling, and not as a right.
Finally, given the representation of women in the Bible, would people accept the ministrations of a female bishop in a theological or doctrinal sense? Here, the answer is ‘not necessarily’, and it is this that worries many. This matter desperately needs to addressed by York’s Synod.
"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says."
1 Corinthians 14:34
It's always hilarious to watch the religious arguing about things, because there is no standard of evidence to evaluate a claim. Once you start taking things on faith, you throw any notion of reason or proof out of the window, and it's all waffle, opinion and 'you can't criticise me in case I get offended'.
Well, you can at least be critiqued, and indeed, you would seem to be getting it backwards. It would be very easy to maintain that reason and demonstration are integral to Christianity, from Moses proto-apologetics at the burning bush ('On what basis should I answer them when they quiz me about the leaving Egypt thing?') to Paul: how much more solid, un-wishy, and logical can you get than the epistles? It is even fashionable in some crowds to dislike Paul because he is 'too clinical and methodical'.
So, what we see is that the bible provides a very solid basis to argue and discuss from indeed. Those with no revelation from God can't talk about anything more insightful than their own cleverness, so the atheist philosophers have the most idle waffle. We can, must, and do evaluate all claims by the bible, an excellent and superb standard and basis for discussing, and learning. What I love most about scripture is precisely the move, in trusting god, away from having to rely on human opinion. Atheism is doomed to never rise above your incomplete thoughts, so cannot intellectually be as coherent because even internal to its system of argument it cannot explain why every possible argument and aspect of the universe should fit in. On the other hand, the solidity of the bible as a foundation means that we do not need to tossed about by indecision, but can reason and be firm in our knowledge of God, because his guarantee that as creator everything fits in place coheres and ensures consistency.
Waffle away with your own opinions on god if you like, but as a mathematician I am rather attached to firmly knowing things, and someone else's say-so is never going to be enough. Looking to God's word is precisely the way to avoid that and enjoy and rich, full and reasonable understanding.
Congratulations to Lizzie Bennett on writing what must be the first balanced presentation of views on this subject. I don't suppose there's any chance of you running for Synod, Lizzie? A return to honest debate in that body would be most welcome!!
Sorry for not reading your article for a while, Lizzie, since watching you write it. I find a few rather unfortunate choices of wording though which distract from the clear presentation.
"The Bible contains many examples of passages which imply, or state explicitly, the inferiority of women." If I may comment, this is where you lost me. In your attempts at conciseness, I think the word 'inferiority' was a tricksy choice in tilting the balance against the bible. Point for point, I think all Christians everywhere, on all sides, would disagree that this is the bible's teaching. "In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free" (Gal 3?), so we can certainly agree that in being (ontology) and ability (graces) we are equal (indeed, this is true in the OT too; eg. Joel "I will make your daughters and maidservants to prophesy", that is, the 'higher gifts' are for everyone too).
Instead of tilting the tables against the biblical balance by labelling it as 'inferiority', could I suggest a shift towards another attitude? We have that there seem to be functional differences between men and women, so we have some different and complementing things to do in the world. You have babies, we act as fathers, you do some other things, we do some other things. All Christians get the Holy Spirit, and both some men and some women are gifted pastorally and as speakers and so on. So, a functional distinction, that says men are men and do manly things, women are women, but makes no judgement about which is better, would seem to be much more appropriate. There are lots more issues in here, as we both know, but I hope that briefly is able to set out somewhat another avenue for thought.
I would suggest also a little dissonance too between your statement "Those who oppose women bishops draw attention to passages in the New Testament, which clearly indicate that women should not hold positions of authority in the Church" and the following paragraphs. If is 'clear', what is the problem with presenting a solid argument? I think your approach is helpful at trying to bring two sides together, but what the passages teach us about the role of women in the Church, while hard to appreciate in its subtleties (and I do not), is not veiled in its direction.
So, it is precisely to the bible that the synod has to turn, to go back to God's word and its source of authority. The secular world might not understand the wonder and richness of that, but 'semper reformanda', the commitment to continually seek to know God in his word by going back to it again and again, is absolutely spot on. Get the synod reading their OTs and NTs and coming back to the table having prayed and sought the Spirit to grow and mature them into and understanding and close knowledge of God. Then again, they are godly men and women, and I trust most (all?) of them to be honest in doing that, and resolve the thorny issues around leadership in as Godly a way as possible. Rome is not an option for most of the churches and pastors committed to the thirty-nine articles. Let's hope and pray for them that they can advance the truth in love and graciousness, and with a way and means of presentation that grows and helps the church.