Wednesday, 2 April 2008

No to Women Bishops: A Denial of the Core Values of the Gospel?

UPDATE: The Church of Wales voted today and the vote to ordain women as bishops failed to get the 2/3 majority. Read it at FiF news.

Today is the day that the Church of Wales votes whether or not to ordain women as bishops. What is so sad about this debate and particularly this article is the lack of exgetical and contextual apologetics for these views. I would love for this to be an intelligent discussion here so if you would like to cast an opinion on the article and arguments put forth, please do so. Let others know that a free and open discussion is welcome here.

The Guardian

In an age when women have broken through the glass ceiling in most professions in Britain, it is strange that they still face discrimination in a church that believes there is "no male or female" in Christ. Women can become judges, surgeons, chief executives and heads of state, but in the Church in Wales - which waited until 1997 to ordain women as priests - they are as yet unable to become bishops.

I do not see how, having agreed to ordaining women to both the diaconate and priesthood, the church can logically exclude women from the episcopate. That is why I and my fellow bishops will be asking members of the church's legislative body today to vote in favour of a bill to allow women clerics to become bishops. It's a move that Anglican churches have made in other countries - Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and the US, though not yet England. I believe Wales is now willing to embrace this important change too.

During the past 11 years, women clerics have enriched the priestly ministry of the whole church, bringing new and different gifts to it. My experience has been that, even in parishes that have been hesitant about the prospect of women clerics, the acceptance has been overwhelming. I am only astonished that when I trained for the ministry in the early 1970s, I did not even question why the ordained ministry was restricted to men.

Those who are opposed to the ordination of women have mostly been gracious, courteous and kind to women priests in neighbouring parishes, deanery chapters and diocesan events. However, this has not always been the case. Discrimination may not be intentional, but it does happen. It has happened to me simply because of the views that I hold on women priests, and I know from the odd occasion that I have been snubbed or ignored how painful and undermining it can be. How much more so to women.

At the heart of the Christian gospel are values of integrity, justice, wholeness and inclusion: "In Christ there is no bond or free, male or female, Jew or Greek" (St Paul). How, therefore, can a church, which claims to set people free and treat all as equal, refuse even the possibility of considering whether women can be called to the episcopate? All this is not irrelevant to the mission of the church, for when women are barred from even the possibility of being elected bishops, it makes the gospel inaudible in our world. As the late Robert Runcie said: "It cannot be irrelevant to evangelism that so many unbelievers think that the place we give to women is absurd."

That is why I cannot support any of the proposed amendments to the bill, which call for the appointment of a male bishop with jurisdiction for those who oppose the authority of a woman bishop. To do so, moreover, would be to sanction schism, to threaten the unity of the church.

If the Church in Wales refuses today to ordain women to the episcopate, it will be in danger of giving the impression that: the maleness of Jesus is more important than his humanity; only men can really represent God and his church to the world; men are the really important members of the human race; the church does not value the gifts and talents of women; and the church is not interested in testing the vocation of women, or even willing to consider their suitability as bishops, because their gender has automatically debarred them from such consideration.

None of these things may be true, but try explaining that to a class of sixth-formers who are interested in what the gospel may be offering them, but for whom that gospel is proclaimed by a church that refuses even to consider the possibility of opening up the episcopate to women.

ยท Dr Barry Morgan is Archbishop of Wales

Comments on "No to Women Bishops: A Denial of the Core Values of the Gospel?"

 

Blogger Matt said ... (02 April 2008 17:52) : 

The urgency expressed here seems problematic. I think it is sensible to say that there is a certain sort of urgency given the changing place of women in our society. The Church, needing to respond to these changing circumstances, must begin ordaining bishops who are women. OK.

But rooting this urgency in the "heart of the Christian gospel" is rather troubling. There weren't bishops before the 20th century (right?) Does this archbishop believe that the Church failed to proclaim the Gospel for so long because of its terrible misreading (I would imagine) of this passage from Galatians? What view of Providence and Church history is implied in such a perspective?

This might not be helpful, but it was what came to mind as I read this piece.

It is also interesting to note the archbishop's point about Christ's maleness being more important than his humanness if we bar women from the episcopate. Those who oppose male priests and bishops apparently believe that only men can fully image Christ to the Church. While this is something worth considering, I also think it is important that the Roman Catholic Church emphasizes that it is very important (even more important) to remember that Christ chose twelve apostles who were all men. I won't develop the implications of this line of thinking except to say that the archbishop may not be addressing some of the most important arguments for an all-male clergy.

Of course, this was a short piece...

 

Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said ... (02 April 2008 18:04) : 

Hi Fr. Steel,

I have a relatively off-topic comment to ask you. It is related to WO, but it's not about women bishops or the Church of Wales.

If I recall correctly, you are mentored by Bishop N.T. Wright. +Wright is a staunch defender and advocate of WO. What do you make of that?

You need not respond if it's uncomfortable. I was just curious.

 

Blogger Fr. Jeffrey said ... (02 April 2008 18:19) : 

TUaD

Thanks for the question and it is a fair one. I have a great amount of respect for the Bishop of Durham in so many areas. He has been a tremendous support and I have enjoyed so much of his academic and popular work and commend it highly to everyone.

I think the Bishop is one of the most fair bishops in the C of E on this issue and does not allow it to become a stumbling block with his clergy. I have a great amount of respect for our bishop.

Yet, I do think he is in error here and his arguments for WO are not the strongest of what is often careful exegesis in his academic work. I am yet to be convinced from a biblical viewpoint and traditionally and historically the response goes without saying.

I don't allow his view on WO to keep me from respecting and appreciating so much of his other work and even defending his orthodoxy in many other areas. I think he is a blessing to the Church even though I believe he has given into the society on this issue.

 

Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said ... (02 April 2008 19:40) : 

Fr. Steel, I understand what you are saying about +Wright.

Back on topic. I heartily agree with with Dr. Barry Morgan on his assertion stating:

"I do not see how, having agreed to ordaining women to both the diaconate and priesthood, the church can logically exclude women from the episcopate."

He's absolutely right! If you're going to ignore Scripture on WO and demolish the biblical foundation on this doctrine, then there's honestly and truly no logical foundation from which to say that women should not be allowed to the episcopate. They really should!

That is, if you're going to hold the line, you should have drawn it and held it much earlier in the battle.

Furthermore, let's just transpose a few words of Dr. Morgan, and make just as compelling an argument for GLBT ordinations:

"I do not see how, having agreed to ordaining women to both the diaconate and priesthood, the church can logically exclude GLBTs from ecclesiastical office."

That's just as reasonable an argument. If you're going to ignore the Authority of Scripture with WO, why stop there?

And how can the Church truly fulfill the Great Commission and share the Gospel with any authentic integrity when the Church herself can't even obey God's clear, culturally-transcendent commands in Scripture. It's ridiculous.

 

Blogger Fr. Don said ... (02 April 2008 19:46) : 

"I do not see how, having agreed to ordaining women to both the diaconate and priesthood, the church can logically exclude women from the episcopate."

I agree completely with Dr. Morgan on this point. However, our conclusions are different as I believe that women should never have been made priests to begin with. But his logic is perfect. I have never understood those in favor of WO but oppose women being elevated to the Episcopate. It seems, to quote Spock, "illogical".

Don+

 

Blogger Fr. Jeffrey Steel said ... (02 April 2008 20:26) : 

I think everone agrees of how illogical it is for the Church of England to have done this and then fails to allow women to be bishops. But two wrongs don't make a right either and maybe one day the C of E can have the real theological debate that is needed.

 

Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said ... (02 April 2008 20:35) : 

Epiphany. Imagine 3 people sitting around a circular table, contending strongly about their views on WO and SS ordinations. One is a liberal revisionist who supports both WO and SS ordinations. One is pro-WO, but staunchly against SS. And the last one is me, anti-WO and anti-SS ordination.

My epiphany is that I am both an ally and an enemy to both. The pro-WO, anti-SS guy will team up with me against the liberal revisionist. And the liberal revisionist guy will team up with me against the pro-WO, anti-SS guy when I tell the WO'er that he has no biblical, theological, and logical foundation from which to protest against GLBT ordinations. His pro-WO position is both leaven to heresy and an open door to a slippery slope towards widespread apostasy.

Too bad, I say. Scripture is against both WO and against GLBT same-sex behavior. I stand on Scripture. If that makes me unpopular and unliked, then so be it. I have always been of the belief that telling the truth of Scripture is the most loving thing one can do.

 

OpenID Anthropax said ... (02 April 2008 23:45) : 

Good news for now - Be Joyful: Keep the Faith!

 

Blogger Bobby J. Kennedy said ... (03 April 2008 15:37) : 

A little off topic, but I love the photo on this post! Too funny.

 

Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said ... (03 April 2008 17:57) : 

For more commentary, please look in the comment thread of this blog post:

http://themcj.com/3725

 

Blogger Timothy said ... (06 April 2008 17:35) : 

>"I do not see how, having agreed to ordaining women to both the diaconate and priesthood, the church can logically exclude women from the episcopate."

Quite right. Its only logical that after having made the mistake of ordaining womn to the diaconate and having made the mistake of ordaining women as priests, that the mistake of ordaining women to the episcopate be made as well. Why can't they see the logic of it all?

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (10 April 2008 22:12) : 

Not quite

Phobe may have been a deacon and no matter how the Church got the priesthood and episcopate - direct from Christ and the Apostles or otherwise - we are certain that she, the Church, instituted the diaconate in the power of the Holy Spirit. I think the diaconate is the most noble order and serves the Church after the manner of Christ Himself. It is of great dignity and I rejoice in being one such ( and a priest also ) but I believe it is different for the Churxh, or our part of it, to admit women to the diaconate as compared to the priesthood and episcopate. Am I entirely wrong?
Nebuly

 

Blogger William Tighe said ... (12 April 2008 19:20) : 

Well, Nebuly, how about getting and reading *Deaconesses: An Historical Essay* by Aime-Georges Martimort (San Francisco, 1986, 1996: Ignatius Press) and formulating an answer. Martimort is one of the foremost French patristic and liturgical scholars of the last two or three generations, and he concludes in his account that whatever deaconesses were, in those few parts of the church where there were any at all before the year 400, they were not "women deacons."

The book (as I have just verified) is available from UK distributors as well; check at www.abebooks.com.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (12 April 2008 23:37) : 

Yes, and that is my view also, but it is a view. the Orthodox at their consultation on Cyprus seemed to favour the opposite. Nonetheless they did not envisage a revival nor did they assert identity of male and female diaconate.
I do not justify our admission of women to the diaconate but suggest it is different. This as I recall was echoed by Henry Chadwick who recorded that in conversation John Paul II raised no objection and indeed showed no interest in our action in so doing but saw the priesthood as utterly different. Nebuly

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (15 April 2008 09:34) : 

Sorry - I got my islands wrong! It was the Orthodox consultation on Rhodes not Cyprus - was it 1988?
Nebuly

 

Blogger William Tighe said ... (15 April 2008 14:27) : 

I would add a reference to a book by a German Catholic bishop, Ludwig Mueller, a friend of the present pope, *Priesthood and Diaconate*, which was translated into English a year or two ago, and which (so I am told) is accessible online (in whole or in part), and which argues strenuously that the "ordination" of "women deacons" is as much an impossibility as their "ordination" to the diaconate or priesthood.

On the other hand, and as regards the Orthodox view of these matters, there is that significant essay by Kyriake Kydonis Fitzgerald on the "female diaconate" in (the 1999 second edition of) *Women and the Priesthood* ed. Thomas Hopko (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press) which advocates strongly for "deaconesses" being truly "female deacons" -- but it is interesting to see, both how contentious this contention is in Orthodoxy, and how, faced with Martimort's book, all she does is effectively to sneer at it as "western in its mindset" and irrelevant to her concerns. I think I gave a copy of the Hopko collection to Fr. Jeff, and if he can find the time to read the Fitzgerald essay I should be interested to learn if he agrees with my characterization of it.

 

post a comment