|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Permalink: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/559
Fulcrum Subjects: Women Bishops / Anglicanism, Church of England / Anglicanism, Evangelical Other articles by Elaine Storkey are available from this site Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum See the 97 comments on this article Who won the General Synod elections and what hope for women bishops? by Elaine Storkey
According to press releases, the ‘Evangelical and Catholic Groups’ were apparently the first to offer an interpretation. Apparently, swapping lists of candidates, they came out with an extraordinary claim, reported both by the BBC and the Church press. For them, the election spelled victory for the opponents of the measure on women bishops. Their analysis apparently showed that ‘in the House of Clergy, 66 Clergy would block the current legislation being sent down to the diocese, (32.10%) and 77 laity would block the current legislation being sent down to the diocese (35.46%)’. Noting gleefully that ‘only 34% is needed to block the legislation when it returns from the dioceses’ the conclusion seemed to them to be self-evident. The measure would fail to reach a two-thirds majority in the House of Laity, and if one more vote was cast against, in the House of Clergy also. Other Synod observers are not nearly so sure. WATCH doubts the accuracy of the analysis and suspects these claims are exaggerated. Not all candidates declared their hand in relation to women bishops, and many who were opposed were not elected. They also note the fact that some vocal opponents to women bishops have lost their seats (eg. Canon Sugden in Oxford) and that a greater number of women clergy have been elected this time round. With muted optimism, they are still hoping for a groundswell of enthusiasm for women to be given full citizenship in the Church of England. So who is right? I have to confess I share some of the scepticism about the figures we are offered. To start with, I’m not sure I can trust that the analysis is at all unbiased and disinterested. As one example - who are these ‘Evangelicals’ analysing the lists? Well they are not the official ‘Evangelical Group in General Synod’ (EGGS) because they have said nothing. John Dunnett of CPAS and secretary of EGGS, seems wisely to have adopted a more cautious approach to assessing the results. They are not Fulcrum, because we honestly don’t know yet what to make of the outcome. No, those speaking for ‘evangelicals’ turn out once again to be Reform, a group with a very much smaller representation on Synod and whose amendments were defeated in the last debate. It was the Chair of Reform who reiterated the ‘findings’ at their conference where he confidently announced again that unless changes were made to the draft legislation it would fall in at least the house of laity, and possibly the clergy also. When wishful thinking gets mixed in with analysis, the results must always be seen with caution. But there is also the issue that we really don’t know what the newly elected members think. This must be especially true when the issue is a draft piece of legislation so complex as the measure on women bishops. Many of them have not had any chance to look at earlier proposals, to follow the debate through so far, to catch up on the work of the revision committee, or to know why the various amendments did not get through. There is a lot of homework to be done before new members can get inside the issues with any real authority. There is a lot of debate to be had, before anyone can confidently predict which way a vote will go in eighteen months time. And therein lies the problem with the response of the so-called ‘traditionalist’ groups. There are still a large number of issues to be thought about and resolved. We still need a more thorough debate on theology, and indeed on Reform’s claims that the opposition is from scriptural grounds. (Other evangelicals strongly disagree.) But to decide so far ahead of time how you will vote on a measure which has not been presented in a final form, suggests an incapacity or unpreparedness to listen and debate. For if minds are already made up along party lines, even on issues we have not yet discussed, then what is the point of Synod? All we would need to do is to assemble the tribes and count the numbers. In fact, in my own twenty–three years as a member of General Synod, this is not what happens. The real work goes on in the interaction of those who disagree, in the exposure of people to views and outlooks which are different from their own. It is in the readiness to hear the Bible through the presentations of others that understanding is developed. It is in the listening and weighing up of the argument where decisions are best made. It is in the openness with which we concede that none of us has the whole truth, for that belongs to God alone, that humility and generosity begin to flourish. The irony for this present debate is that no-one on Synod knows yet what a Code of Practice might look like, because there has been little time to discuss it, or give any comprehensive outline of what it might contain. No-one has yet fully heard why many of us, who hold a high view of Scripture, feel compelled to open all the offices of the Church to the full participation of women, because we have not had chance to explain it. And no-one knows how the dioceses might respond, or what suggestions they might have to offer before it comes back for the definitive debate. So even those of us who fully support the Women Bishops’ Measure as it stands will need to wait and see before we can give final approval our wholehearted support. It is, indeed, the very least we can do. My prayer is that incoming members of Synod – even those with very firm views on the Catholic and Reformed edges – will do the same. I do hope we can all hold fire until we have carefully read the legislation then presented, and take part in the debate with prayerful and open hearts. That way, I believe we do stand some chance of hearing what God might have to say to the Church of England. Discuss this Article on the Fulcrum Forum Forum Posts About This Article:Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 11 December 2010 - 09:35am @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }ol { margin-bottom: 0cm; }ul { margin-bottom: 0cm; } Hi Phil. I feel we might be heading for an impasse between our complementarian and egalitarisn views! Nonetheless let me try to respond to your two questions. You quote some verses from 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 and then ask whether ‘these statements of Paul: 1. Indicate a difference between a man and a woman? 2. Are true today?’ On the first question, Paul does indicate differences here but, I suggest, they need to be understood in context. In 1 Corinthians 11 the word translated as ‘head’ (kephale) can be understood as ‘source’ and this seems to make more sense in v.3: ‘…Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ’. Here Paul seems to be alluding to the Creation story in Genesis 2 where Eve is taken from the side of Adam, so, in that sense, the man is the source of the woman. And just as God is not superior to Christ, being his ‘source’, so man is not superior to woman. After all, she was taken from the side of man, not his head to rule over him or his feet to be submissive to him, as has often been said. On the matter of the veiling of woman (vv.4-7) it has been pointed out that the tradition for Jewish women was to cover their heads and Paul (we see similar contextualized statements elsewhere) was apparently keen that the Greek Christian women of Corinth did not offend their Jewish sisters. We see this expediency in Paul’s desire not to cause offence in 1 Cor 10.32-33: ‘Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage…’ Paul was able to adjust to contemporary culture where necessary. In Ephesians 5, I take the contextual statement of v.21: ‘Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ’ to be the template for all relationships, following the example of Christ’s self-emptying (Phil 2). On your second question, asking whether the Pauline statements around ‘headship’ are ‘true today’, I believe not. Essentially, because I see many of Paul’s statements about men and women in the early Church as temporary adjustments to the radical novelty of Christian women’s newfound freedoms. I take the Bible’s ‘bigger’ perspectives as still ‘true today’. These include the two Creation stories. In Gen 1, human image-bearing is summed up in the phrase, ‘male and female he created them’ and we see no division of labour between men and women in the command for humankind to ‘have dominion over’ the created order. In Gen 2 we read that God sees the man’s loneliness and thus makes ‘him a helper as his partner’. It’s worth noting that the Hebrew behind the word ‘helper’ is, in the majority of cases in the OT, used of God (God is my help, etc) and does not imply inferiority. The statement in Gen 3:16 concerning the effects of the Fall, ‘and [your husband] shall rule over you’ should be seen as descriptive of male domination rather than prescriptive. As Elaine and others have argued, there is much in the NT showing Jesus’s radical affirmation of women and the emergence of women in ministerial roles and, as I reasoned in my last post, Galatians 3:28 can be seen as the manifesto for a new freedom for the sexes in Christ. Posted by: John Martin Friday 10 December 2010 - 09:45am Hi Phil The Fulcrum Leadership Team posts statements and comments from time to time but does not post responses to individual requests on Fulcrum Forums Posted by: Phil Almond Thursday 9 December 2010 - 08:32pm Roger As you know Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11, amongst other things ‘But I wish you to know that of every man the head is Christ, and [the] head of a woman the man, and [the] head of Christ God’ and For a man indeed ought not to be veiled the head, being [the] image and glory of God; but the woman is [the] glory of a man and in Ephesians 5 ‘…because a man is head of the woman as also Christ [is] head of the church…’ Whatever ‘head’ and ‘glory’ mean, do you agree that these statements of Paul: 1 Indicate a difference between a man and woman? 2 Are true today? Perhaps I could ask David, Elaine and wggrace the same questions Phil Almond Posted by: DavidR Thursday 9 December 2010 - 04:09pm I don't doubt for a moment that those expounding the complementarian view of these verses are seeking to be obedient to scripture. They therefore believe that women's ministry and presence in church must be confined to certain areas. But Jenny Reid ponted out earlier on this thread in relation to 1Tim 2 - 'Even those who think it clinches the argument don’t seem to know what it means in practice! Should a woman pray out loud, speak in a Bible study, read the lesson, train a choir with men in it, lead a Bible class with teenage boys in it, lead a home group, be a member of the PCC or Synod, be a Reader, be ordained? I have heard debate on every one of these with no satisfactory answers and certainly no clarity at the end of the day.' I am still waiting for any holding this position to describe what such a church would look like in practice. If I am to apply this teaching in practice how does it work? What is allowed and what isn't? And secondly, could someone holding this interpretation clarify whether they believe this should apply to women in society as well. If headship is regarded as part of the original 'good' ordering of humanity in creation then presumably it should apply outside the church as much as within. If this hierarchical ordering so central to Biblical teaching on ministry and the church why is it so strangely imprecise as to what it means in practice - and at what point then do we start to wonder if this interpretation makes any practical sense? Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 9 December 2010 - 11:57am @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Thanks Phil for that. You make a good case for what has been called the ‘complementarian’ view, pinpointing the importance of the ‘headship’ passages in 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5 and, as we’ve previously discussed, 1 Timothy 2. You then interpret Galatians 3:27-28 in the light of these statements, arguing that these latter verses simply, and profoundly, declare that ‘with respect to salvation there is no distinction’. My view has been described as the ‘egalitarian’ view where the ‘headship’ verses are interpreted in the light of Galatians 3:28 and the other biblical perspectives put forward by David, Elaine, myself and others on this thread. The argument here suggests that Galatians 3:28 refers to both salvation and function. Yes, I agree, ‘all are one in Christ Jesus’ in the salvific sense ‘as Abraham’s offspring’ (v.29) but I think there’s more to be said concerning function. Interestingly, it has been noted that the stir amongst Christians in the late 18th and early 19th centuries against slavery and the impetus towards women’s suffrage both came from a revisiting of Scripture. For example, Catherine Booth said this of Galatians 3:28 in 1859: ‘If this passage does not teach that in her privileges, duties, and responsibilities of Christ’s Kingdom, all differences of nation, caste, and sex are abolished, we should like to know what it does teach, and wherefore it was written’ (see ‘A History of Interpretation of Galatians 3:28’ on http://lionelwindsor.net). The argument in the egalitarian approach to this verse lies in the hermeneutics of ‘seeds’, that Scripture, as well as giving us clear foundational injunctions, also has ‘seeds’ within its texts that take time to sprout, flower and bear fruit. The example of the emancipation of slaves is clear. You rightly point to a number of Pauline passages on slavery and, as you say, there is still a distinction between slave and free in these texts. They are essentially about the status quo of the existence of slavery and give guidance for how to be a good master or a good slave in Christ. But, surely, the ‘seeds’ are seen in the Bible (love your neighbour as yourself; love your enemies; etc), not least in Galatians 3:28, for the eventual ‘fruit’ of the freeing of slaves. Similarly, the thrust of much in Romans and Galatians seems to argue a new freedom in Christ between Jew and Gentile, so that there is an eventual freeing up from the necessity of circumcision, etc., and, thus, a loss of rigid distinctions and the generation of ‘seeds’ that grow into a move towards similarity of function in the Body of Christ. May it not be also, as a number of us argue, that the same liberating route lies in Galatians 3:28 and elsewhere for the function of women as well as men in the Church? Here, Galatians accords well with Genesis 1, in that men and women are called to be co-workers in God’s image, equal in their calls into service and ministry. Posted by: Phil Almond Tuesday 7 December 2010 - 08:37pm Response to Roger Hurding’s use of Galatians 3:28 in his 27 November 2010 post. ‘For all sons of God ye are through the faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as into Christ ye were baptised, Christ ye put on. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor freeman, there cannot be male and female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.’ These words tell us that with respect to salvation there is no distinction. See also Romans 10:12-13, and as Paul says earlier in verse 22, ‘But the scripture shut up all mankind under sin in order that the promise (of the Spirit – verse 14) by faith of(in) Christ Jesus might be given to the ones believing’. But what about other distinctions? For ‘Jew nor Greek’ it is clear from Romans 11:16-29 that there is still a distinction between Israel and the nations. For ‘slave nor freeman’ it is clear from Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, that there is still a distinction. So the abolition of salvation distinctions in Galatians 3:27-28 does not abolish other distinctions. This should prepare us for the ‘male and female’ distinctions in: 1 Corinthians 11 (‘…being [the] image and glory of God; but the woman is [the] glory of a man…’), Ephesians 5:23 (‘…because a man is head of the woman…’), 1 Timothy 2:13 (‘For Adam first was formed, then Eve’) and the marriage distinctions based on the doctrines of Creation and Redemption and the ministry distinctions based on the doctrines of Creation and Fall. So the salvation ‘inclusiveness’ mentioned by Roger does not ‘surely’ imply ‘that all branches of ministry are as open to women as they are to non-Jews and ex-slaves’. Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 2 December 2010 - 02:13pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Nersen, you write: ‘maybe we should have a 'listening process' for those who want to stay in line with the teaching of the church catholic / the teaching they accepted when joining the CofE re bishops? (Don't worry, I know the 'listening process' was always supposed to be a one way street)’. Surely the ‘listening process’ is a two-way street, or even a three-way street. Isn’t that exactly what we’re doing in this thread? I’m listening to you; you’re listening to me; and we’re both seeking to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. If we go on like this we could break out into an Indaba! Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 2 December 2010 - 08:30am Hi Roger, yes we are approaching it differently - I think Tom Wright seems to be applying Rom 14 correctly to the CofE bishops issue..... even though he is pro WO, he does not want to impose change that leads to greater division now. Strange how some (I am not saying you) seem quite happy to see some who are against WO leave the CofE if they will not accept the position of the church they want adopted.... but at the same time argue that we must 'listen' to others who go against the teaching of the church in other ways... maybe we should have a 'listening process' for those who want to stay in line with the teaching of the church catholic / the teaching they accepted when joining the CofE re bishops? (Don't worry, I know the 'listening process' was always supposed to be a one way street) Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 1 December 2010 - 09:56am @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Hi Nersen. I think your last post highlights the difference of interpretation between us. I suppose the crux of our discussion on women and the episcopate lies in what importance we give to the issue. Is it at the level of what we eat and whether we observe special days, as in Romans 14, or is it at quite another level, an ontological level of the place of women in Christ’s body? My perception lies at the latter level and that is why I, along with David, have drawn attention to the apostles’ early resolutions around admitting Gentiles into the Church. I also see a parallel to the comparably profound matter of the emancipation of slaves. If Romans 14 is taken as a template in the debate on women, what lessons can be drawn? Assumedly, that each ‘side’ needs to be non-judgmental towards the other ‘side’. But I’m not sure, with this application, which group is seen as the ‘weaker’ and which the ‘stronger’. Surely, a rigorous application of this chapter here leads to an impasse where both ‘integrities’ sit side by side. That would be fine in, say, the example of whether to be a vegetarian or not but not, as I argue above, with an issue as fundamental as the place of women in the Church’s ministries. Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 30 November 2010 - 03:11pm Phil, when I asked you what biblical commentaries and scholarly theological sources you found supporting your own interpretation of 1Tim2 I confess I had more in mind than a reference to one volume of a journal you posted way back in August - www.cbmw.org/Vol-10-No-1/ . I am interested to know what commentaries you find helpful for studying 1Tim for example and how they respond to Bailey/Wright's studies and those on this thread who are inclined to go with them. I feel I have yet to hear the absolutist case seriously engaging with the 'contingent' and that is willing to risk saying just what kind of world their position implies for men, women and roles. When you say 'some ministries' are open to women which ones do you mean for example - and which not? Should my wife be helping my 16 yr old son with the chemistry homework - but not religious studies? Or should she withdraw from the chemistry discussion when it strays onto discussing evolution, science and God. Should she have taught either of my sons how to open and manage a bank account? Both absolutist and contignent readings of this scripture are intensely practical - it is about how actual lives are lived so these questions are not irrelevant or mischievious. Those of us engaging with you have offered a number of sources - all of which show an awareness of all sides of the debate before coming to their own conclusion - as we have. Those sources have also suggested how the reference to 'teaching' in 1Tim2 might be understood so I simply don't understand why you think your question about that is a new way to approach this discussion at all. Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 30 November 2010 - 10:16am @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Phil, certainly the paper by Alan Padgett at http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/scholarship-patriarchy-1-timothy-28-15-response-women-church is given from a ‘contingent’ viewpoint but he is very fair-minded in his critique of the ‘absolutist’ stance in Kostenberger so the article lets light into both sides of the debate. I do recommend that you read this piece for a measured paper that respects both viewpoints, while arguing for his own case. An example of an absolutist view that acknowledges both an Ephesian context and comes to similar conclusions to yours, arguing that Paul’s statements are to be taken at face value and apply for all time, is found in Charles Powell’s article ‘Paul’s Concept of Teaching and 1 Timothy 2:12’ (1988) at http://bible.org/article/paul%E2%80%99s-concept-teaching-and-1-timothy-212 Posted by: Phil Almond Monday 29 November 2010 - 09:02pm Roger Thank you for that. However am I right in thinking that all the articles on the website you mention are all on one side of the debate? Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 29 November 2010 - 03:11pm Hi Roger. I bring up Romans 14 because it teaches an attitude...and Tom Wright seems to be applying that attitude to those in the CofE with whom he, like you, disagrees with re WO.... but you seem to think that they should be treated like people teaching a sinful attitude (e.g. rejecting gentiles in the church, given the examples you give)? I think Tom Wright is right...he is applying Romans 14 to our situation - at cost to himself, not others Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 29 November 2010 - 12:10pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Phil, I appreciate your question in your last post: ‘…has someone else already collated the various understandings from all sides. If so, where can they be found please?’ This website is worth checking and downloading the excellent paper by Alan G. Padgett at http://www.cbeinternational.org/?q=content/scholarship-patriarchy-1-timothy-28-15-response-women-church Here, in his ‘The Scholarship of Patriarchy (on 1 Timothy 1:8-15) he puts forward a beautifully reasoned critique of the book by Kostenberger, Shreiner & Baldwin, Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 (1995). Padgett declares two approaches to 1 Timothy 2 (approaches reflected in our own discussion here on Fulcrum): ‘absolutist’, a ‘reading that applies it to all times and places’; and ‘contingent’, a ‘reading that finds the passage speaks to its original context, but which its author did not mean to be universal.’ We have already seen an example of a contingent reading in the emphasis given by Tom Wright and Bailey on the Ephesian context. Padgett challenges the absolutist approach of Kostenberger et al, declaring that ‘a critical reading of this book in the light of modern scholarship demonstrates just how weak the case for a patriarchal reading of 1 Timothy 2 really Is’. In his contingent approach he sees the 1 Timothy 2:8-15 passage in the context of certain heresies that were being propounded in Ephesus and writes that these verses were ‘written to a particular time and place, concerning a specific group of women and men who were causing a specific problem in the Ephesian house churches. Paul had a specific group of men in mind in v. 8, and women in v. 9-10, 15. We must also conclude that these same women are in mind in v. 11-14. It seems, then, that the false teachers were especially effective in leading women astray, at least among those believers who were desirous of becoming bishops, deacons and elders under Timothy. Note the absence of concern about heresy in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and 5:17-22 in discussing men in leadership. The false teachers were men, but they were not seeking to become leaders under Timothy’s hands. Rather, they sought to deceive women in particular (2 Timothy 3:6-8) and caused quarrels and anger in the churches (2:23-26).’ Pladgett follows Luther in a Christ-centred approach to the Bible that seeks to interpret Scripture by Scripture. He takes the text and context of 1 and 2 Timothy very seriously and comes up with a persuasive argument on the ‘time and place’ limitations of these letters in their pastoral commitment to countering specific heresy and its corrupting influence on believers. His conclusions fit well with David’s words in his most recent posting: ‘So we actually have here a biblical precedent for continuing to move forward in trust and hope towards the full inclusion of women and men in the ministry and mission of the church.’ Posted by: DavidR Sunday 28 November 2010 - 08:05am Tom Wright's exegesis of 1Tim2 contradicts his own view that the NT church did not proceed with changes to its ministry if it would cause significant division. (we have already noted that the Gentiles would never have been included if that were true) Here at Ephesus, an unusual cultural and spiritual context means that there were confident women coming to faith and expecting to play a full part at every level of the church - not least its leadership. It would be entirely understandable if Jewish or Gentile male church leaders needed help knowing how to cope in such a context! But Paul does hold anyone back at all here. He commands the women to learn alongside men. He wants women and men to be theologically literate together - to be fully part of the church. And he lays down a disciplined but radically inclusive pastoral framework within which men and women together can grow, mature, learn and share the work of ministry and mission as partners. So we actually have here a biblical precedent for continuing to move forward in trust and hope towards the full inclusion of women and men in the ministry and mission of the church. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 27 November 2010 - 07:41pm Summary as I see it: ‘Discovering Biblical Equality….’ makes an assertion on page 13. My view is that this assertion, with respect to Ministry and Marriage, is contradicted by the Bible. In putting forward my view I wish the strongest arguments from all sides to be considered and challenged. I am in the middle of trying to challenge and refute what I take to be one of the strongest attempts to make good the page 13 assertion with respect to marriage, the I Howard Marshall essay in ‘Discovering….’. With respect to Ministry, I am taking the page 13 assertion to mean that all the Ministry roles can be obediently carried out by women. For shorthand and to avoid words like ‘egalitarian’ I suggest we call this the ‘All view’. I am arguing that only some of the roles can be obediently carried out by women. I suggest we call this the ‘Some view’, avoiding words like ‘complementarity’ (now used/claimed by both sides). In the All/Some debate/disagreement 1 Timothy 2 is agreed by all to be a significant passage. 1 Timothy 2 has been minutely scrutinised in recent years without reaching a consensus as to what Christians should do and not do to obey its teaching in the 21st century. I would like to see the various understandings of what the chapter meant to the church at Ephesus and what it means for us today, set out so that we can all assess how convincing or unconvincing they are, after further needed discussion. A way of doing that is suggested in my 23 November 2010 post. Is anybody willing to approach the issue that way? Or has someone else already collated the various understandings from all sides. If so, where can they be found please?. Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 27 November 2010 - 05:10pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Hi nersenpaul. Thanks for your reminder of Romans 14 but, as I have argued previously on this thread, I do not see that chapter as straightforwardly applicable to the issue of including women in the episcopacy. It’s focus is on behavioural patterns with regard to eating habits and the observance of special days and urging its readers to be non-judgmental towards those who reach different conclusions in such areas. It is, I suggest, more about whether I shall be a vegetarian or not, or whether I should mark the Feast of Charles the Martyr on the 30th of January as a day of particular devotion. I see, rather, Acts 10 and Acts 15 as relevant to the current debate. Here there is the Spirit-guided revelation that the Gentiles are to be included in God’s Kingdom and then the loving compromise that sets out the minimum requirements for those Gentiles. I see the issue around the admission of women to the episcopacy, along with the emancipation of slaves and the dismantling of Apartheid, as resonating with the opening up of the Church to Gentile believers. The seed-bed of such liberations is seen in the manifesto of Galatians 3:28 where Gentiles (Greeks), slaves and women are seen as ‘all…one…in Christ Jesus.’, along with Jews, the free and men. And surely such inclusiveness implies that all branches of ministry are as open to women as they are to non-Jews and ex-slaves. The indicators for this, in the case of women, has been well stated biblically by Elaine in her post of 11th November. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 26 November 2010 - 11:31am Hi Roger - your points to Phil re context do not excuse not applying the attitude taught in Romans 14 to 'weaker brothers'.... which Tom Wright is applying in not wanting to push through decisions that he agrees with - genuine concern for the 'weaker brother' applied to our context? Posted by: Phil Almond Thursday 25 November 2010 - 08:32pm David Contra your ‘You have yet to offer any scholarly sources to back up your own reading - or that seriously engages with what I and others have offered’ see my 14 August post on ‘Evangelical opponents of women bishops’ thread, with its reference to ‘The Council On Biblical Manhood & Womanhood’ – www.cbmw.org Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 25 November 2010 - 04:29pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Phil, let me, along with David, try once more to question your seeming reluctance to admit to the importance of context for the sender and recipient of an epistle. One of the rich beauties of the Bible is its pages are set in context, where real people in real places in historic settings both write and receive what is written. Suppose you were to discover a letter in your attic, dated, say, in 1943 and written to someone called John based somewhere in Europe. And suppose you read something controversial about the role of men and women in its pages. Would you not want to know something of the setting that the recipient lived in? Would your understanding of the cryptic passage not be influenced by that setting, whether, say, it was a German concentration camp containing a hundred or so men, an artisan village in occupied Belgium or a convent in France committed to silence? Similarly, is it not helpful to realize that the recipient of Paul’s letter, Timothy, is based in Ephesus (see 1 Tim 1:3) and that he lived in a community dominated by the worship of Artemis, or Diana (see Acts 19) with its attendant emphasis on female supremacy? Might that not be relevant to the much disputed passage in 1 Tim 2? To quote Tom Wright once more, from his 2004 paper previously quoted: ‘Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organising male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, with one feature of that being that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. The word I’ve translated ‘try to dictate to them’ is unusual, but seems to have the overtones of ‘being bossy’ or ‘seizing control’. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis-cult, but so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership God is giving them.’ Posted by: DavidR Thursday 25 November 2010 - 09:42am The discipline of revisiting the 1Tim 2 teachings in the light of the ongoing debate about women and men in ministry has been helpful - the media attention has tended to be focussed on the Rome end of things. Faithfulness to scripture matters. But Phil I think I know a dead end when I see one. (and by the way I am not sure why my recent posts have changed font size at odd moments. It looks as if I was shouting at you at moments in the debate. I assure you I was not!) On this thread some careful bible exegesis and scholarly sources have been offered a) pointing to the importance of knowing the cultural and religious background of Ephesus for interpreting what Paul teaches and why and b) suggesting the fuller sense of Paul's words in the light of that. Not all agree but there is nothing new in this consensus. Donald Guthrie's IVP commentary, written in the mid 1950's at a time when Evangelicals would never lightly risk appearing 'unsound' notes matter-of-factly that the local context is needed in order to explain Paul's words here. To complain about lack of evidence is, in the end to wish that Paul had written a different way and that Bible was more careful in providing later readers with full footnotes or better still a study guide in the appendix. Afterall we have been left to draw a great deal of our theological understanding from the surviving halves of correspondence (and some of it only extracts) conducted between local church/church leaders and the apostles in the C1. Had the Bible been left to us to put together we would have approached it very differently wouldn't we? I don't know what would convince you to take seriously the exegisis based on this engagement instead of repeatedly demanding explicit evidence (if only Paul had mentioned 'Diana' - just once) and accusing even Tom Wright of 'speculation'. You have yet to offer any scholarly sources to back up your own reading - or that seriously engages with what I and others have offered. So far the only sources you have quoted have been CS Lewis about the problems of interpreting the 'Faerie Queene' (!) and a thriller by John le Carre! Until you can do better you sound like a very stubborn biblical lone ranger who is simply sticking to your own viewpoint position in th face of a great deal of scholarly evidence to the contrary. Until you can show there is some consensus for your exegesis you are the one who is in danger of speculating actually. You challenge us to respond to your post of the 23rd 'which tries to turn this debate and disagreement to what the letter does say'. Bit of a cheek that. That's what this whole discussion has been about that. Haven't you noticed? What you mean is 'what I am convinced the letter does say'. I have said before that I respect your passion for scripture and concern for its faithful reading. I share it too and can live with the possibility we may agree to differ. But on this topic I don't really have any more I can add to what I and others have said already and would prefer not to go on repeating myself. Posted by: Phil Almond Wednesday 24 November 2010 - 07:48pm David My statement “the part of Bailey’s paraphrase which says ‘…because they have brought their syncretistic religious beliefs into the Church’ does not express the sense of anything in the passage” is just a statement of fact. To refute it you need to identify an extract from the passage which Bailey’s words paraphrase. I say ‘alleged’ in line with my earlier “Such views (about the presence at Ephesus of a ‘massive cult of the goddess worship’) may be right. But in order for the ordinary Bible reader (me) to be convinced they are right it is necessary to research the subject in depth, to compare and contrast other informed views and come to a first-hand conviction”. Your failure to identify anything in the epistle or anywhere else as evidence that Paul had such a cult in mind makes me think that you agree that no such evidence exists. Such being the case I find that your dictionary definition of ‘speculation’ fits quite well with what Wright and Bailey are doing (and any other ‘reputable evangelical bible scholars’ who do the same). I hope you now understand that I am not denying the existence of such a cult at Ephesus. I am merely highlighting the difference, in coming to a view on the meaning of a New Testament letter, in the weight which we should give to what the letter actually says and the weight we shouldn’t give to circumstances (not mentioned in the passage) of which the writer and recipient of the letter would probably have been aware, and which might (speculation – there is no evidence) or might not have been in the writer’s mind or assumed by the writer to be in the recipient’s mind. I wonder if you and others are going to respond to my 23 November post which tries to turn this debate and disagreement to what the letter does say? Phil Almond Posted by: DavidR Tuesday 23 November 2010 - 10:53pm Hi Phil You claim that 'the part of Bailey’s paraphrase which says ‘…because they have brought their syncretistic religious beliefs into the Church’ does not express the sense of anything in the passage'. Apparently it doesn't for you. OK. But I would have thought that there have been enough references from Wright and Bailey on this thread to clarify why reputable evangelical bible scholars are very inclined to the view this forms an important background to Paul's words here. I happen to agree with them. You write: 'I am describing as ‘speculation’ the assertion that Paul had the alleged ‘massive cult of the goddess worship’ in Ephesus in mind when he wrote what he wrote'. By 'alleged' I am left wondering if you doubt the existence of this cult - or at least the extent of its influnce in Ephesus. In which case I wonder what makes you dispute the extensive historical evidence. In my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (vol 2 1985) I find 'speculation' defined as, 'conclusion, opinion, view reached by abstract or hypthothetical reasoning'. There is nothing abstract or hypothetical about the idea that Ephesus was dominated by a very large cult of Goddess worship. The historical evidence is well established. The commentaries acknowledge it. Why do you find it such a strange or dangerous thought that this would have impacted in an unusual way on relationships between women and men in an otherwise overwhelmingly patriarchal world? We might even expect, barring explicit evidence to the contrary that this may explain why Paul gives so much careful teaching on the relationships between men and women in ministry to Timothy. And if it is then we should be very careful about drawing universal principles from teaching given to a very specific (and unusual) pastoral situation. It is perfectly possible, in fact quite likely, that Paul should write without making direct reference to the cult - he is writing a personal letter to someone who actually lives in Ephesus after all. Timothy does not need reminding there is a massive goddess Temple just outside his bedroom window. (But that really is speculation on my part). I am genuinely puzzled that you continue to imply that careful research into the background of an Epistles is 'speculative' rather than a responsible and helpful contribution to the work of faithful interpretation of scripture. In this context I find it rescues the text from an over literal reading that has too long been used to oppress and exclude. Posted by: Phil Almond Tuesday 23 November 2010 - 09:06pm ‘Learn the facts, Steed Asprey used to say, then try on the stories like clothes’ reflected George Smiley (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy – John Le Carre). I suggest we try that with 1 Timothy 2:11-15. It doesn’t matter where we start, so long as we link everything up. As a first point of debate (and, I expect, disagreement): do we or do we not agree that didaskein de (verse 12) is correctly translated as ‘but to teach’; in other words, does the sense include an idea of contrast, or not? Phil Almond Posted by: Phil Almond Monday 22 November 2010 - 09:21pm David In my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1964) ‘paraphrase’ is: Noun: Free rendering or amplification of a passage, expression of its sense in other words; any of a collection of metrical paraphrases of passages of Scripture used in Church of Scotland etc. Verb transitive: Express meaning of (passage) in other words. The part of Bailey’s paraphrase which says ‘…because they have brought their syncretistic religious beliefs into the Church’ does not express the sense of anything in the passage. I am describing as ‘speculation’ the assertion that Paul had the alleged ‘massive cult of the goddess worship’ in Ephesus in mind when he wrote what he wrote, when there is no evidence in the entire epistle that he had that in mind. Do you agree that there is no evidence in the epistle that he had that in mind? Can you produce any evidence from elsewhere that he had that in mind? Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Monday 22 November 2010 - 12:05pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Phil, thank you for your detailed response to my recent posts. You ask, of Tom Wright and Bishop Stancliffe, ‘Do they give their understanding of these words elsewhere?’. There is a fuller account of Wright’s views in his ‘Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis’, given at St John’s College, Durham, in 2004. See http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm Here he expresses more fully his views on 1 Timothy 2, including this: ‘The key to the present passage, then, is to recognise that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so (verse 11). They are to be ‘in full submission’; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men’, or ‘to their husbands’, but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ – the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’ In terms of the particular verses discussed I suspect we have to agree to differ on their precise interpretation, depending on how much we take the texts at face value or how much, where the meaning is uncertain, we seek to understand what is said in terms of background and context. In both approaches we need to take heed of the ‘bigger picture’ in biblical revelation. Posted by: DavidR Sunday 21 November 2010 - 08:39pm Phil, I will just respond to part of your responses if I may. You claim that in seeking knowledge of background of a Bible passage against which a bible passage is written we move from exposition to speculation. Well first of all I would be a little more tentative about accusing scholars of the calibre of Wright and Bailey of indulging in speculation when they refer to historic and social history of Ephesus. But I suspect that the opposite is more probably true. Background knowledge is more likely to safeguard us against unfounded speculation. Speculation is opinion that is not adequately based on verifiable facts. I find that the background to the Timothy teaching, for which there is solid evidence illuminates the text that otherwise could carry a very different meaning - one that for far too long has been used to sanction the mistreatment of women and their ministry in the church. So the consequences of misunderstanding these texts are grave. But if you assume we can understand scripture without any awarenes of original then arguably our own interpretation will be just more vulnerable to speculation not less. 'Humble openness' to scripture without the hard work of background study will be vulnerable to mis-interpretation. It may easily be humbly wrong. It is fundamental discipline in reading scripture that we ask what the text would have meant to those who first received it. That involves enquiring about the background. The background to Ephesus is not only well known from reliable historical sources, it is very obvious that it could be very significant for what Paul is trying and address and why it needs addressing. You write: 'If we compare Bailey’s paraphrase ‘I permit none of these theologically ignorant women (in Ephesus) to teach, because they have brought their syncretistic religious beliefs into the Church’ with what Paul actually wrote ‘Let a woman learn in silence in all subjection; but I do not permit a woman to teach nor to exercise authority of(over) a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has become in transgression’ – I hope everyone can see the dangers of Bailey’s approach. He has altered what the Bible says.' He has done nothing of the sort. It is called a paraphrase Phil that seeks to illustrate the 'sense' of Paul's teaching. What you keep calling speculation is actually a careful scholarly attempt at interpretation. It is not dangerous. Nor does it claim to be infallible. It is offered for discussion and discernment. This is how Christians test and weigh scripture together. And sometimes, where more than one reading may be possible, we agree to differ. But here the weight of biblical scholarship is on Bailey's side rather than yours. Posted by: Phil Almond Saturday 20 November 2010 - 04:50pm Continuing response to David and then Roger: David’s other points (18 November): For me it means in practice that the right way forward is to recognize that the page 13 assertion in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality….’ is mistaken with respect to ministry and marriage and that the ordination of women was a mistake and that the consecration of women would be to take another step along that mistaken path. I realize such an admission would be an agonizing and utterly traumatic one especially for women who have been ordained. ‘The question of whether women should not be in any position of leadership/teaching/training at all in the world .... business, education, doctors’. I don’t know. Wggrace on another thread commented in response to my view of Proverbs 31, “Proverbs 31 presents the women as doing much more than ‘running the home’. She has a very public economic role”. Perhaps he is right. Does the world function at the moment in any meaningful way? I am willing to believe, though I would need to research the question in depth to give a first-hand view, that throughout history men have oppressed women, have in Christian circles and the Church failed to put into practice what the Bible says, on my understanding, about marriage and ministry. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Roger Hurding (19 November): I have read the references to 1 Timothy 2 in ‘A response to Cardinal Casper’ by Bishop Wright and Bishop Stancliffe. They write, “The famous passage in I Timothy 2 does not mention 'headship'…”. I disagree. When Paul wrote, ‘For Adam first was formed then Eve’ he was saying the same thing as ‘the head of the woman the man’ and ‘a man is head of the woman’. But clearly in such a wide-ranging article one could not expect the Bishops to expound the passage in detail. So they do not give their understanding of ‘…in all subjection’ (verse 11) nor of ‘but I do not permit a woman to teach nor to exercise authority of(over) a man but to be in silence’ (verse 12 – does the Greek word definitely mean ‘silence’ and not ‘leisure’ here?) nor of ‘For Adam first was formed then Eve…has become in transgression’ (verses 13-15). Do they give their understanding of these words elsewhere? Or have they been content to leave it to the authors of ‘Discovering Biblical Equality….’? See also my response to David about the ‘mainstream religion was female-only’ at Ephesus point. ‘So as if anyone[is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; the old things passed away, behold they have become new. …and not only[so], but also [our]selves having the firstfruit of the Spirit we also [our]selves groan in ourselves eagerly expecting adoption, the redemption of the body of us. For if according to flesh ye live, ye are about to die: but if by [the] Spirit the practices of the body ye put to death, ye will live. Put ye to death therefore the (your) members on the earth, fornication, uncleanness, passion, bad desire, and covetousness which is idolatry…..’ Yes, the new creation is with us but it has yet to be finally and completely realized in the new heavens and the new earth. The only explicit teaching on the man-woman relationship then is Jesus’ words in Matthew 22:30. But for the present age we do have the explicit teaching of Ephesians 5, which is clearly asymmetrical. Phil Almond Posted by: Phil Almond Friday 19 November 2010 - 10:05pm Response to David (18 November 2010 on this thread re 1 Timothy 2): References to 1 Timothy 2 on this thread: Peter Waddell (12 November). As Peter rightly says, the view that ‘it is still OK to disagree with him’ (St. Paul) does pinpoint ‘a central theological disagreement between us’. As I understand it Elaine Storkey, David, Wggrace, Roger Hurding and all the authors of ‘Discovering Biblical Equality…’ are agreed that our views on the ordination of women, the husband-wife relationship and indeed on all matters of Christian truth and behaviour must agree with what St. Paul wrote and said as recorded in the Bible. My disagreement and debate with them is about the correct understanding and implications of what he wrote and said. As I have said before, the debate about whether it is OK to disagree with St. Paul is a quite different debate. David (“why does Paul not judge Adam in the garden rather than Eve - for not 'being the head' when Eve offered him the fruit” - 13 November). Elsewhere Paul does judge Adam: ‘but death reigned from Adam until Moses even over the[ones] not sinning on the likeness of the transgression (my italics) of Adam, who is a type of the [one]coming’ (Romans 5:14); ‘For as in Adam all die…’ (1 Corinthians 15:22). User 1930 (15 November). I think my last post covers these points. Roger Hurding (16 November). I think both the big picture and the detailed texts are both important. See my last post. Wggrace (16 November). I presume that Wggrace’s ‘All they can do is harp on about 1 Tim 2:12 and a controverted reading of one obscure word’ refers to the word translated variously as ‘usurp authority’ (AV), ‘have authority’ (RSV), ‘have authority’ (NIV), ‘domineer’ (NEB). When Paul wrote the specific texts of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 he was no doubt aware of the specific texts about Deborah, Jael, Huldah, and aware of the incident at Bethany etc. And yet he writes ‘let a woman learn in silence in all subjection, but I do not permit a woman to teach……but to be in silence. For Adam first was formed then Eve…’. And as I have said on another thread, however we harmonise 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Corinthians 14, I do not see how Paul could have written ‘As in all the churches of the saints, let the women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted to them to speak, but let them be subject, as also the law says’ if he believed that all the ministry roles could be obediently carried out by women. It is striking that Paul speaks of ‘silence’ and ‘subject(ion)’ in both passages (different greek words in each case, but presumably similar meanings). It is also striking that in the Corinthians passage Paul writes ‘As in all the churches of the Saints…’. Do we all agree that here at any rate he is not addressing a particular Corinthian situation? And what does he mean by ‘as also the law says’? Any suggestions anyone? In seeking to show that the page 13 assertion in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality…’ is contradicted for ministry and marriage by the Bible I, at least, have harped on about Ephesians 5 as much as on 1 Timothy 2. David (17 November) In 1 Timothy Paul advises Timothy to charge ‘certain persons not to teach differently nor to pay attention to tales and unending genealogies’ and warnings about ‘missing aim and turning aside to vain talking, wishing to be law-teachers’. There is Paul’s personal testimony and the charge to Timothy. There is guidance on qualities for oversight and deacons, warnings about future apostasy, exhortations and instructions to Timothy and about the widows’ roll, exhortations to slaves, avoidance of the love of money etc. I can’t find any reference to the situation at Ephesus as ‘the centre of massive cult of the goddess worship’ or ‘where the mainstream religion was female-only’ (Bishop Wright as quoted by Roger Hurding (19 November)). So this is a case which often occurs in seeking to understand what the Bible means. Two issues. Firstly, we move from a situation where we all have the Bible open in front of us, seeking in humble dependence on God to hear and obey and to be open to the wisdom and gifts of others who likewise have the Bible open in front of them, to a situation in which views are expressed about aspects of the situation derived from sources outside the Bible: historical research, archaeology etc. Such views may be right. But in order for the ordinary Bible reader to be convinced they are right it is necessary to research the subject in depth, to compare and contrast other informed views and come to a first-hand conviction. Secondly when such views so derived are used, as here, to give a context and a help to understanding (not present in the text) the meaning of what the Biblical writers have written, we have moved away from exegesis to speculation. It may be very plausible speculation but it is speculation. In his essay On Criticism Lewis makes a point which, while not directly applicable to the way Bailey (David tells us) is arguing, should make us pause for thought: ‘Critics of Piers Plowman and The Fairie Queen make gigantic constructions about the history of these compositions……..five minutes’ conversation with the real Spenser or the real Langland might blow the whole laborious fabric into smithereens’. If we compare Bailey’s paraphrase ‘I permit none of these theologically ignorant women (in Ephesus) to teach, because they have brought their syncretistic religious beliefs into the Church’ with what Paul actually wrote ‘Let a woman learn in silence in all subjection; but I do not permit a woman to teach nor to exercise authority of(over) a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived has become in transgression’ – I hope everyone can see the dangers of Bailey’s approach. He has altered what the Bible says. And it is a speculative game that both sides can play. I could just as easily argue that Paul chose this letter to Timothy in Ephesus to write what he did write because he believed that permitting women to carry out all the ministry roles would lead to the sort of religious situation which, we are told, prevailed at Ephesus. I am not saying that. But it is just as plausible as what Bishop Wright and Bailey are saying. Responses to (rest of) David (18 November) and Roger Hurding (19 November) to follow Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 19 November 2010 - 05:08pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Phil, on the debate about 1 Tim, do see Tom Wright’s piece, ‘Women Bishops: A Response to Cardinal Kasper’, a background article for the General Synod in July 2006 and given in Fulcrum’s section of articles. What he says fits well with David’s piece on the same chapter. Bishop Tom writes: ‘The famous passage in I Timothy 2 does not mention 'headship', and can properly be read, within a context (Ephesus) where the mainstream religion was female-only, as a warning against allowing women to usurp the proper ministry of men. In fact, the primary exhortation of I Timothy 2:11 is 'let the women learn' (the Greek manthano means 'learn, especially by study'), and is qualified with a phrase which can mean 'in silence' but equally 'at leisure': in other words, women must be given the space to study for themselves, an obviously revolutionary proposal in that age as in many subsequent ones, not least because, in Paul's world as in Jesus', to 'study' would not be for one's own benefit alone, but in order to become a teacher of others.’ Furthermore, in response to your questioning of the foundational nature of Galatians 3:28, it is worth reflecting that, in Genesis 1:27, we read, ‘So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’ Does this not imply that women and men are called to bear the image of the triune God, mirroring the love, friendship and mutual submission found within the godhead? It would seem strange, then, to argue that in the new creation, in Christ, the mutuality and symmetry of this image-bearing gives way to a hierarchical understanding of men, women and ministry. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 18 November 2010 - 08:55am Phil Can I invite you to stay with the 1Tim stuff. Some careful exegetical material has been offered on this thread. I wonder how you respond to it. Are you really saying local context has no relevance to what Paul is writing? And if you do - what does it mean in practice? If women should learn 'in silence' should Elaine be even contributing to this thread? And if women shouldn't teach should you, as a man, be engaging with what she writes at all? And if everything is to be understood through an over-arching creation/marriage/redemption route as you insist then are you saying women should not be in any position of leadership/teaching/training at all in the world .... business, education, doctors .... your interpretation of scripture here is not just about church ministry is it? Perhaps you can understand I am struggling to image how a world, based on your reading scripture, functions at all in any meaningful way. Posted by: Phil Almond Wednesday 17 November 2010 - 08:36pm I continue to argue against the assertion on page 13 of ‘Discovering Biblical Equality….’. I maintain that this assertion is contradicted by the fact that the Bible, while emphatically supporting the ministry of women in some roles, also teaches that some roles should not be exercised by women; and by the fact that Ephesians 5 exhorts husbands and wives to model their relationship on the created order (‘because a man is head of the woman’) and on the relationship between Christ and the Church. Comment on Elaine’s post 11 November 2010: Elaine argues that the same principle is at work in the issues of circumcision and the page 13 assertion in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality….’ (I am assuming that she agrees with that assertion. Please tell me if that is a wrong assumption). That is, Elaine argues, Paul’s teaching in Galatians is the explicit normative teaching about circumcision: ‘Behold, I Paul tell you that if you are circumcised Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man being circumcised that he is a debtor to do all the law’. Whereas Paul’s action in circumcising Timothy is because ‘he wanted Timothy's ministry to be unimpeeded and recognized that the early Church was not yet mature enough to accept him as an uncircumcised leader’. In a similar way, Elaine argues, Galatians 3:28 (‘Paul affirms the equality of women and men in Christ in Galatians 3 28’) and the examples she gives (Priscilla etc.) are the explicit normative teaching and the ‘restrictions which are sometimes placed on women's participation’ (which include, presumably, 1 Timothy 2) are either Paul going along with the restrictions of Jewish ‘tradition’ for the sake of unity and peace, or a concession because the church was not yet mature enough to accept women leaders (or, as others would have it, in 1 Timothy 2 Paul is addressing a particular situation). This line of argument is unconvincing for the following reasons: Paul’s argument in Galatians chapter 3 contrasts ‘works of law’ with ‘hearing of faith’ and ends with ‘For all sons of God ye are through the faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as ye were baptized into Christ ye put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor freeman, there cannot be male and female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. But if ye[are] of Christ, then are ye a seed of Abraham, heirs according to promise’. Paul’s words are about salvation and receiving the Spirit; not about ministry or marriage. So Galatians 3:28 cannot be the ‘fundamental principle’ and context which governs the right understanding of man-woman-ministry-marriage. The right fundamental principle and context, the explicit and normative teaching, comprises: 1. Creation doctrine of man and woman: Genesis 1 and 2. 2. Fall doctrine of man and woman: Genesis 3; Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15. 3. Marriage, and all that it involves, is used throughout the Bible (explicitly in Ezekiel 16, Hosea, Romans 7, Revelation 21; implicitly in Psalm 45 and Song of Songs) to illustrate the spiritual relationship between God-in-Christ and his people, personally and as a community. Those in Christ (whether married, remarried, single, divorced, separated, widows, widowers) are all ‘female’ in this relationship. As Francis Schaeffer says somewhere, this is surely a picture that we would not dare use if God himself did not use it. 4. What Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 (3, 7-9, 11-12 (however we understand verse 10)), 1 Timothy 2:13-15, Ephesians 5:23a gives us his view on the Creation and Fall framework for the husband-wife and man-woman relationship. In 1 Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5 he refers to the Genesis Creation account; in 1 Timothy 2 he refers both to the Genesis Creation account and to the Genesis Fall account. 5. So in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Paul bases his words on universal and fundamental truths – the doctrines of the creation of man and woman and the fall of man. I cannot believe he would do that if he was just addressing an exceptional situation and if he did not intend his words to apply to the rest of the church. 6. In Ephesians 5:23b ff marriage is not (as in Ezekiel 16 etc.) an illustration of the God-People relationship but rather the God-People relationship and the self-sacrifice of Christ which creates it for those who repent and believe are the realities which those married are called upon to imitate as they live out their lives together. Husbands are exhorted to die a loving death for their wives. Wives are exhorted to submit to their husbands. Here we have the doctrine of Redemption as a husband-wife model. The examples of the ministry of women to which Elaine refers should be seen in the context of the above framework, and not the other way round. Taken all together they do not amount to proof that all the ministry roles should be exercised by women, whereas 1 Timothy 2 explicitly rules out some roles. The fact that those who agree with me on this disagree about which roles does not overthrow the fundamental point. Phil Almond Posted by: Roger Hurding Wednesday 17 November 2010 - 02:24pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Thank you wggrace for your helpful comments. I had not intended to offend but also realized I was running that risk! So please accept my apologies, and anyone else out there I might have offended. I was essentially trying to tease out another perspective for our debate on the Bible and women’s ministry. I suppose I was stepping into the ‘reader-response’ discussion on interpretation, angling at the possibility that our different ways of favoured thinking (be they particularizing or ‘broad canvas’), and indeed our different personality types, are inevitably part of the hermeneutical process. You are right. There are strengths and weaknesses in both broad categories and both need to find ways of being faithful to the Word through the Spirit. And thank you David for your post on Kenneth Bailey’s article on Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy. Thank you too for your earlier contributions to this interchange. They commendably set the tone for a perceptive discussion. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 17 November 2010 - 12:28pm Roger Thank you for your wise contributions to this really helpful thread. The social and spiritual background to Paul’s Timothy teaching was very helpfully explored by Kenneth Bailey in an article in Anvil ( vol 11/1/1994). He makes the point that Greek, Roman and Hebrew society was utterly dismissive of women. Rabbis at the time would not teach women. Ephesus was the exception in being the centre of massive cult of the goddess worship. A huge temple with celebrations that lasted a whole month a year dominated the region. Women led this cult. Men could only lead if they had been castrated. (This gives whole new meaning to ‘weaker brethren’!) Bailey asks: ‘in such an atmosphere, what kind of female-male relations would have developed? What possibility would any male-religious leadership have had for a sense of dignity in such a city? What kind of female attitudes would have prevailed in such a city? How easy would it have been for the values of the society to have penetrated the Church? Would not anti-male sexism in various forms have been inevitable?’ In this context, with a local male leader who is clearly struggling (Timothy) Paul lays down some firm guidelines. He first of all insists that women learn. Contrary to Rabbinic teaching he wants women, like men, to be theologically literate. But he also says let them learn in quietness (a better translation than ‘silence’ – who actually learns in silence?). Confident women used to absolute authority over men and to running things in the Temple need to take time to submit to the task of learning their new faith (as men do). So Bailey reads ‘I permit no women to teach’ as specific to that context and paraphrases it - ‘I permit none of these theologically ignorant women (in Ephesus) to teach, because they have brought their syncretistic religious beliefs into the Church.’ This makes all sorts of sense for there were clearly women teachers and prophets elsewhere in the NT church. It also warns us against a taking of a teaching given in a very specific local context and imposing it universally. Does the reverse apply here? How would Paul write to us today? In a society/church where men have routinely run things and exercised authority over women, how does a community begin to live out a gospel in which there is ‘neither male nor female in Christ’, in which women prophecy, have clear teaching gifts, where the first apostle was actually a women ….? Perhaps men, so used to controlling the leading and teaching roles, need to learn in quietness the truly inclusive theology of the gospel of Christ. Posted by: wggrace Tuesday 16 November 2010 - 09:58pm I am rather uncomfortable with Roger's right/left brain comment, his proof texters versus the broad canvas approach. It seems unnecessarily insulting to those who diagree with him but also to those who agree with him. I see myself as analytical and fond of textual evidence and yet am much closer to his views than to Wayne Grudem for example. Indeed, I think that it is my love of detail and specific texts that make me think this way. And the broad canvas approach runs the risk of simply being a creation of one's own prejudices. Or was he being equally disparaging about both sides of the debate, showing self-deprecation as well as other side deprecation? It is the failure to consider specific texts that I believe undermines the so-called complementarian view. It cannot cope with Gen 2:23-24 with its strongly egalitarian emphasis, or the role of Deborah, Jael, Huldah in the OT, or the welcome of Mary (of Bethany) into the world of men, or of the women prophesying in Acts 2 et al, or of women speaking the Word of God to the church in 1 Cor 11 or of the role of Priscilla or Phoebe and so on. All they can do is harp on about 1 Tim 2:12 and a controverted reading of one obscure word. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 16 November 2010 - 02:52pm Hi Roger. Glad we agree on that.... and that means that as the people mentioned in John 17, who listen to the apostles' message, we ought to worry if we contradict them....because they were given the promises about being led by the Spirit.... and the Spirit is not likely to be using us to contradict Himself! Labelling something a 'proof text' does not give us licence to contradict it.....it may be proof of a particular point. While Romans 14 may teach an attitude to weaker brothers that many, if not all, find hard to adopt, we cannot just ignore it because of some bigger picture goal..... that is exactly what the teaching is there to prevent, is it not? Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 16 November 2010 - 10:44am @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Nersen, you write, ‘we are on shaky ground if we come along and contradict what [the apostles] wrote (given they were inspired by the Spirit)’. Yes, I agree with that. The dilemma comes when, as in this debate, Christians agree with your premise but, in searching the Scriptures, come to different conclusions as to what contradicts and what agrees with apostolic teaching. Broadly, it seems to me, that this division often comes about between those who opt for ‘proof texts’, such as 1 Tim 2:12, and those who discern a bigger picture emerging in scriptural revelation, as demonstrated by Elaine in her posting of the 11th of November. We might even say that this shows a distinction between ‘left brain’ activity – analytical and concerned with the smaller detail of individual texts – and ‘right brain’ attitudes which are more ‘broad canvas’ in seeing emerging principles and developments, the seeds of which are found in Scripture. Whichever category we find ourselves in we need the wind of the Spirit to illuminate the Word, respecting both individual texts and the wider sweep of God’s revelation, as in co-partnership between men and women seen in Gen 1 and 2 and the Pauline, ‘there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus’, in Gal 3:28. Jenny, with reference to 1 Tim 2:12 (and in fact to vv.8-15 and 1 Cor 14:34,35), I remember reading in James Olthuis’s book ‘I Pledge You My Troth’ many years ago that the context of these statements may have been a tendency for at least some first-century Christian women to have been carried away by their new-found emancipation in Christ and thus been disruptive in gatherings to worship. These were thus temporary prohibitions linked with initial church order. Posted by: nersenpaul Tuesday 16 November 2010 - 09:09am Hi Roger - what I am saying is that if in John 14-16 the apostles are told that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit, we are on shaky ground if we come along and contradict what they wrote (given they were inspired by the Spirit).... we are mentioned in John 17 as those who believe in their message (not as those who will contradict it) Posted by: User 1930 Monday 15 November 2010 - 08:16pm Hi Dave, 1 Tim 2:12 is certainly regarded by some as the ’proof text’ regarding women's ministry. However, it’s an extraordinarily difficult text wherever you’re coming from, as your question, and Peter and David’s replies, indicate. Even those who think it clinches the argument don’t seem to know what it means in practice! Should a woman pray out loud, speak in a Bible study, read the lesson, train a choir with men in it, lead a Bible class with teenage boys in it, lead a home group, be a member of the PCC or Synod, be a Reader, be ordained? I have heard debate on every one of these with no satisfactory answers and certainly no clarity at the end of the day. A bigger problem though is that these verses are by no means the only place where reference is made to women’s ministry and they cannot be taken in isolation from the rest of Scripture. It is surely a basic principle that ‘scripture must interpret scripture’. Elaine helpfully points out some of the other key passages. and lists women's ministry there as ‘teaching, diaconal, apostolic, prophetic and evangelistic’. I suggest that there must have been specific local circumstances leading to the statement in 1 Timothy. Has anyone a better solution? Jenny Reid Posted by: Roger Hurding Sunday 14 November 2010 - 03:03pm @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Yes Nersen I agree, the words in John 16 were spoken to the apostles but are you saying that all the words of Jesus, including those about the Spirit, have the purely local application of being for apostolic ears only? So, assumedly, you are arguing that all Jesus’s teaching in John 14-16 was teaching for the apostolic era only. This would include such declarations as ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’, ‘If you love me, you will keep my commandments’, ‘I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-grower’ and ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you’. Do not these, and the verse in John 16, ‘The Spirit of truth…will declare to you the things that are to come’, have the widest application for both the apostolic generation and for the future life of the Church? Perhaps it depends whether you see the Spirit’s work as simply giving the apostles God’s words then, on that score, retiring from the scene to watch with interest as to how the Church proceeds, or, rather, that his/her work also includes, for all time, the task of helping the Church in its prayerful and continual revisiting of Scripture to reveal and clarify its often hidden truths. Such a process, I have suggested, has applied, for example, to the anti-slavery and anti-Apartheid movements and now, for many of us, to the current debate on women and the episcopacy. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 13 November 2010 - 11:45pm Roger - thanks for referring to John 16. Those words were spoken to the Apostles....not you and I.... John 17 refers to us (those who believe the apostles message) but in John 16, is it not the Apostles being addressed, is it not? I do not think we can claim it is the same Spirit leading us to contradict what the apostles taught and passed down to us ...not just refer re 'rules' for the church but also what they teach re attitudes as in Romans 14 re how to treat 'weaker brothers' even when we disagree with them on disputable matters. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 13 November 2010 - 11:28am My question regarding the reading of 2Tim1.12-13 relates to headship. For those who believe Paul teaches the headship of a man over a women why does Paul not judge Adam in the garden rather than Eve - for not 'being the head' when Eve offered him the fruit? Paul, on this reading (my stress note), seems to want to have it both ways. Posted by: Roger Hurding Saturday 13 November 2010 - 09:23am Hi Nersen. You write, 'I don't think we have the same authority as the apostles ....do we? What they were inspired to write has more authority than a vote of a synod, doesn't it?' It all depends how you see the words of Jesus: 'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will decare to you the things that are to come' (John 16:13). And this was spoken by the one who is 'the same yesterday and today and for ever' (Heb. 13:8). I believe that we see in Acts 10 and Acts 15 such examples of the Spirit breaking through with 'new things', new things, that is, whose seeds are found in the Word. We see comparable instances of the Spirit freshly applying the Word in the abolition of slavery and the challenging of Apartheid. Many of us (the majority through Synod) are open to women and the episcopacy as another pivotal instance of the Spirit's stirrings and bringing to fruition the seeds of potential change found in Scripture. Posted by: Peter Waddell Friday 12 November 2010 - 09:28pm I think I'll regret this ... but a response to Dave on 2 Tim 1:12. (jumping in front of Elaine: sorry!). How do I interpret it? I'm tempted to say with the same degree of reverence as I approach 'All Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons - that testimony is true.' (Titus 1:12)! But (perhaps) more seriously, I read it in the light of 2 Tim 1:13: '...Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor'. Adam was not deceived? He may be St. Paul, but it doesn't stop him from making the occasional rubbish theological argument. Paul is the first and the greatest Christian theologian - but it is still OK to disagree with him. But that, of course, is probably a central theological disagreement between us. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 12 November 2010 - 05:40pm Hi Roger. I don't think we have the same authority as the apostles ....do we? What they were inspired to write has more authority than a vote of a synod, doesn't it? Posted by: Roger Hurding Friday 12 November 2010 - 10:32am @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Thank you Jenny for your response to my posting on the principle of compromise at times of crisis in the story of the Church and for your helpful further contribution, Elaine, on the issue of circumcision. Jenny, you write, ‘The challenge now will be to develop a Statutory Code of Conduct which will have the same unifying effects as the letter produced after the Council of Jerusalem: recognising the implications of the gospel as God works among us, clearly establishing the way forward and exhorting us all to behave in a way that honours the name of Christ.’ I heartily agree. I do find the parallels of the opening of Christian commitment to the Gentiles and the unifying compromise of the Council of Jerusalem invaluable in considering the episcopacy for women today. As ‘the apostles and elders’ said to the Gentile Christians, ‘For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials…’ (Acts 15:28). We need to discern what the ‘essentials’ of a Godly compromise might be in the present debate so that we can echo the statement, ‘…it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…’ And Elaine, your summary of the pragmatism of the early Church over circumcision, in spite of the new agreed principle of not requiring this rite for Gentile Christians, points the way forward in the debate on women’s episcopacy. Surely the day of pragmatic traditionalism is over in this regard. As you say, ‘After two thousand years, however, Gentiles and women are not special cases any more, and we could expect that the church might have gained some more maturity!’ And Nersen, you write, ‘I am not sure the synod of the CofE has quite the authority of the apostles to change the teaching of the church..... but I am sure the Spirit inspired the apostles to teach what they taught.’ Isn’t that exactly the point? As you say, the Spirit inspired the apostles in their teaching and, by implication, in their proposed compromises. Should we not be open today to the Spirit’s leading at a comparable pivotal point in the Church’s unfolding story? Posted by: Dave Friday 12 November 2010 - 09:43am Elaine, I find that too often on this issue Christians talk past each other ignore the arguments of the other side so I would ask how you interpret 1 Timothy 2:12 " But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." and how you understand headship? David Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 12 November 2010 - 08:53am 'Let them go if they choose to go!" seems to be the passive-aggressive attitude of some here....... not consistent with Romans 14, is it? I am glad that Rowan Williams, John Sentamu and Tom Wright, all enthusiastic WO supporters, still seem to want to work for unity.....still seem to value their 'weaker brothers' despite disagreements on a disputable matter. Posted by: Elaine Thursday 11 November 2010 - 07:42pm I think this has become a useful discussion. I am grateful to the many contributors and now to Roger and Jenny for their insights. The issue of circumcision is of course a key one. It is particularly interesting that even though Paul was utterly firm on the principle that Gentiles Christians did not need to be circumcised - standing up against the Judaisers who stressed tradition over the liberating power of the Gospel, (Acts 15, Galatians 2) he nevertheless circumcised Timothy because his father was a Greek. (Acts 16) This does not mean Paul was confused, or that there were 'two integrities' or that he got it wrong earlier. It means that he wanted Timothy's ministry to be unimpeeded and recognized that the early Church was not yet mature enough to accept him as an uncircumcised leader. But the fundamental principle is spelled out in Galatians 3 28, in which removes all human barriers to equality in Christ. So the decision to circumcise Timothy was merely a pragmatic one, to free up his ministry and to stop people squabbling! I believe the same principle applies to women. Paul affirms the equality of women and men in Christ in Galatians 3 28, and honours their ministry. He works alongside those who have a teaching ministry (Priscilla - Acts 18 24-26, see also Romans 16 3, 1 Corinthians 16 19 etc), a diaconal ministry (Phoebe -Romans 16 1) an 'apostolic' ministry (Junia - Romans 16 7), a prophetic ministry (Philip's four daughters Acts 21 8), and an evangelistic ministry (Philippians 4 2). We have to understand the restrictions which are sometimes placed on women's participation in the context of all this. Just as the Apostle went along with the restrictions of Jewish 'tradition' in Timothy's case, for the sake of unity and peace, it is possible to see the same principle at work in the case of women. After two thousand years, however, Gentiles and women are not special cases any more, and we could expect that the church might have gained some more maturity! Elaine Storkey Posted by: User 1930 Thursday 11 November 2010 - 05:15pm Hi Roger, Thanks for your helpful post, particularly for pointing out that compromise ‘is a profound biblical principle at crisis points in church history’. Too often we needlessly fight pitched battles with neither view conceding an inch. The parallel with the question of the inclusion of the Gentiles is a strong one. This was a key time in the development of the early church and was plainly a very contentious issue, with passions running high on both sides, but more importantly it was crucial in the outworking of the implications of the gospel. However, it is important to note that there was no compromise over the issue of circumcision itself. It was clearly decided that Gentiles were not required to undergo circumcision. The difficulty with regard to the debate on ‘Women in the Episcopacy’is to recognise on which points compromise can be made. If for instance Paul had agreed that Gentiles had to be circumcised, that would have changed the nature of the Christian church for ever after. Similarly, if certain compromises are made regarding the ministry of women bishops, that will also have a serious permanent effect not just on their ministry but on the kind of church we are to be in the future. If women bishops are not appointed on the same terms as men, the validity of their actions will continually be called into question and the church will be permanently split into factions over this one issue. I think this was the difficulty which caused the Archbishops’ amendment to fall at the Synod in July. The challenge now will be to develop a Statutory Code of Conduct which will have the same unifying effects as the letter produced after the Council of Jerusalem: recognising the implications of the gospel as God works among us, clearly establishing the way forward and exhorting us all to behave in a way that honours the name of Christ. Jenny Reid Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 11 November 2010 - 04:36pm Roger - I am not sure the synod of the CofE has quite the authority of the apostles to change the teaching of the church..... but I am sure the Spirit inspired the apostles to teach what they they taught. Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 11 November 2010 - 11:46am Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000006521 StartFragment:0000002522 EndFragment:0000006485 @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } One of the key words needed in the current debate is ‘compromise’, not as a soft option of ‘anything for a quiet life’ but as a profound biblical principle at crisis points in church history. David has referred to Acts 10 and Acts 15 and their relevance to the present discussion. These passages are worth revisiting. In Acts 10, Peter, Cornelius and the ‘circumcised believers’ are astonished by the God of surprises who, through the Holy Spirit, challenges and overturns the traditionalism of Judaism. The ‘givens’ of the Law are subverted by the wind of change: ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ Here is a compromising of dearly held beliefs and practices. Here Peter and his fellow-believers ‘were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles’. Notice that little word ‘even’, revealing their incredulity at such a profound ‘turn around’. In Acts 15, we encounter another pivotal compromise. Certain Christians, still held by Jewish tradition, were urging that Gentile Christians should conform to the Mosaic custom and be circumcised. Here was a potential impasse amongst the faithful that could easily have led to deep division. Discussion by the apostles and elders, under the guidance of Peter, Paul, Barnabas and James, led to concessions of practice for the newly converted Gentiles. The latter ‘rejoiced at the exhortation’. Here we see compromise and concession, and the setting aside of certain traditions, for, to quote Paul again, ‘making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Here, too, we see the classic interplay between Word and Spirit, Spirit and Word where, for example, James in Acts 15 refers to ‘the words of the prophets’ to confirm God’s call to the Gentiles (vv. 15-17). And this, I believe, is echoed today by those who support women’s ordination and its extension to the episcopacy. Here the Spirit is surely stirring and leading the Church, in accordance with the Word’s revelation of the radical, and unexpected, emergence of women leaders in the early Church: amongst whom were Priscilla, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Julia and Nereus’s sister. We see the same profound indicator in the faithfulness of the women at the Crucifixion and Jesus’s prioritizing of Mary Magdalene at the Resurrection. God is a unifying and inclusive God. The Gentiles were included as equal partners in the Church. And today, women should be fully included as equal partners in the Church. Posted by: Roger Hurding Thursday 11 November 2010 - 09:55am Thank you Waterangel for your wise and unifying words. Posted by: David Baker Thursday 11 November 2010 - 08:47am Re David's comment of Monday 8 November 2010 - 03:08pm It is worth looking at http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/11/10/10-november-letter-to-times-from-wallace-benn/ and http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/11/times-drags-bishop-into-gutter.html Whatever the rights and wrongs and issues relating to women's ordination, it is worth being aware that The Times (and Telegraph, following the Times's story) were well out of order with stories which in my opinion as a former journalist were quite probably defamatory and libellous. Posted by: WATERANGEL Wednesday 10 November 2010 - 06:01pm Roger Hurdings ref to Eph 4 "making every effort for the unity of peace" This is the most relevant and applicable part of the gospel for our reference and guidance that we could have for this issue. Intergrity? intuitive honesty and truthfulness. Can there be two truths? if each person follows the commandments of paul, which was "to consider the other before ourselves", where do you go from there, for it would simply mean stalemate. Unless of course each side considers the other and works towards comprimise without fear , favour or retribution. Fearfulness does not make for peace, neither does favour and certainly not retribution, i would define retribution as the threat of splits in the church. Comprimise is a person moving on willingly (not under pressure) from the current position, and certainly not putting people in catch 22 situations. Favour would be positive discrimination in favour of either side. Real integrity is to Love without condition, and to take any distress or hurt to the Lord, asking for guidance to reach the position that every effort achieves unity of peace. The minuite a clergy person is unable or unwilling to do that, they have no message to share, for an uncomprimising message is not and cannot be a message of hope, and it is hope of the things to come in eternity and the mission to give everyone the opportunity to hear, which works towards unity. They can have the message for themselves, as part of the growth process but it is their growth, and will not enable the growth of others. I base this on the understanding that we are all on a journey, and we all need different things along the way, so integrity is reached when we meet our brother/sisters need without it preventing us from having a personal relationship with God. To hear Gods call to move on is one thing, to move on under pressure or as a threat is something else. The five going to Rome seek a comprimise to settle themselves to live in peace with the Lord, they have given an example of an escape route, they are not aiming for wilderness, but in humanity may find it; and God will maintain them. Women Bishops would be part of the journey to bring the C/E out of the isolation and wilderness and decline they find themselves in. With real integrity God will honour that unity with peace in the Church in order that the Church will be strong enough to fight the external threats, which is about whether anyone wants to acknowledge Christ as their saviour anymore. For if the church offers no stability through disunity, many may decide that other Gods are a safer bet. From my perspective, defecting to the Catholic Church from the C/E is like being put in fostercare, or being a fostercarer. The care is there, the role is there, but it is missing the roots and without roots, there is always a sense of not belonging, that can happen when changing denominations, or when changing faiths. Christianity is the only faith where the belief is transferable from one denomination to the other, but the sense of belonging where there are generations of families and you are on the outside can not be transferred. Unity in such instances becomes very much between the Individual and God rather than between Men and Women called by God. Waterangel Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 10 November 2010 - 03:18pm Charles - you are right technically but, to use your phrase, 'you should know perfectly well' that what is on offer falls far short of what WO supporters like the ABC and ++York wanted to offer..... despite people knowing the result would be that some left the CofE but perhaps thought that was a good thing? I know there is a 'passive-aggressive' stance which wants to paint people as walking out and imply there is no real need to do so, but given the stance of the ABC at the last synod, that is not very persuasive....and certainly not in line with the attitude taught in Rom 14 and elsewhere. Still, some have left and some seem quite happy with that result..... Posted by: carl Wednesday 10 November 2010 - 02:57pm Charles Read wrote: "you should know perfectly well that it is wrong to say that no provision is being made for those opposed. Synod voted on that very proposal in July and rejected it. What is proposed is a Code of Practice to cater for (defend??) those opposed." The 'provision' in view was proposed precisely because: 1. It is entirely at the discretion of the bishop. 2. It is revocable at will. 3. It contains no means of enforcement. 4. It provides no consequences. 5. It will lead to the demise of the opposition over the long term. Other that that, I am sure it will work just fine. carl Posted by: Charles Read Wednesday 10 November 2010 - 12:57pm Nersen - you should know perfectly well that it is wrong to say that no provision is being made for those opposed. Synod voted on that very proposal in July and rejected it. What is proposed is a Code of Practice to cater for (defend??) those opposed. Now you may say this is inadequate and many opponents of the ordination of women say it is because it is not what they want, but that's another matter. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 10 November 2010 - 07:38am Roger - thanks for the Eph 4 quotoation.....hard to go from that to a situation in which no provision is made for people who do no accept an innovation but hold to the 2000 yr old position of the church catholic and its majority position today....let them leave in the name of unity? I think Romans 14 applies....it teaches an attitude ...even when one thinks the weaker brother is wrong, it does not say let him leave if he will not change....... perhaps the application is to make some provision for him - just as Williams and Sentamu, supporters of WO, tried to do.....but they found a different attitude in the last synod. Posted by: Roger Hurding Tuesday 9 November 2010 - 05:31pm Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000004528 StartFragment:0000002521 EndFragment:0000004492 @font-face { font-family: "Times New Roman"; }@font-face { font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } Thank you David for your fair-minded contributions to this debate and for your invitation to widen that debate. Like you, I strongly question the use of Romans 14 as a template for the discussion on the acceptability or otherwise of women bishops. Looking at the passage afresh I am reminded that the call here not to judge our brothers and sisters is consistently with respect to behaviour patterns and certainly not to differences in theological understanding or in appropriate forms of church leadership. The examples given relate to the observation of special days and matters to do with what is eaten or drunk. Where there are differences in these behaviours there is an appeal to see that each person behaves in a way that is ‘in honour of the Lord’ and free from judgmentalism. The issues surrounding women bishops is of quite a different order, much more akin, as you say, to the ‘two integrities’ of Gentile Christians and Judaizers. Here, under the Spirit’s leading, there should be a comparable ‘compromise’ between those who support women bishops and those who don’t for the sake of the unity of the one Church. As Paul puts it in Ephesians 4: ‘…bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ Posted by: DavidR Monday 8 November 2010 - 03:08pm Welcoming a wider debate here please .... 'weaker brethren' is being quoted as a relevant text in the discussions about those opposed to women bishops. I have two questions .... 1. Is this text relevant at all to the issue of women bishops and their opponents - and if so how? For example Paul did not suggest separate churches for Gentiles or Judaisiers for example (two integrities) as a way of coping with the divisions between them. Isn't the weaker brethren text a very specific pastoral response rather than an issue relating to theology or church leadership? Will women bishops cause those opposed 'to stumble' - and if so how? 2. Do Forward in Faith or Reform members really welcome being called 'weaker brethren' in this context? It does frankly strain the imagination to picture +John Broadhurst or +Wallace Benn as 'weaker brethren' in the light of their recent muscular, warrior language. (But nor are women the weaker sex anymore if their threat is comparable to the Nazis in 1939.) It is simply because this matters very much to all sides that we need to be very careful how we use scripture. Any thoughts? Posted by: carl Monday 8 November 2010 - 01:47pm Five bishops of the CoE just resigned effective Dec 31. Thus do they reveal their opinion of their long-term viability within the CoE - Synod or no Synod. Thus do they testify to their complete lack of confidence that any meaningful provision will ever be made. The victors squabble amonst themselves over which scraps they might throw from the table. They toss a partially-gnawed crust of bread as if to a dog and say "Be filled," but are surprised to find no one licking their hands in gratitude. Men are not well-disposed to be satisfied with scraps. There are alternatives to begging meager pieces of bread. Once this process starts, it will not be stopped. The more who leave, the easier it will be for the church to spin off into full-throated liberalism. The more liberal the church becomes, the greater the outflow of those leaving. The processes re-inforce each other, and eventually become irreversible. The church you are constructing by such means may be seen in the comments at Thinking Anglicans. It will be homogenious. It will be pure. It will be relentlessly modern. But it will will not know God. carl Posted by: nersenpaul Monday 8 November 2010 - 07:44am Maybe you do not want to answer the questions below, David? Tom Wright is willing not to push for what he thinks is right if the cost is division....he is treating the matter as "disputable" (a la Romans 14) and is putting his 'weaker brothers' first. Are you willing to do the same? If not, you are moving the matter from being 'disputable' into saying that those who do not accept the innovation are teaching something "incompatible with scripture".... in which case, they should not be accomodated in a meaningful way. Posted by: DavidR Monday 8 November 2010 - 06:49am Phil, as you say we have been discussing this for fully on another thread. Why don't we keep it there. I am stll hoping for your response to challenges I have put to your position. Posted by: DavidR Sunday 7 November 2010 - 08:49pm Nersen, Trying to have a debate with you is like trying to pin jelly to a wall. You continue to miss my points while adding another half dozen of your own and a few red herrings for good measure until you end up where you started. OK. We tried. Posted by: Phil Almond Sunday 7 November 2010 - 08:22pm David As I have tried to say on another thread: We know that Peter’s Joppa experience was an ‘overwhelming initiative of the Spirit to reveal it and lead the first Christians back to the scriptures for fresh understanding’ because the Bible says so. Whether the experience(s) which cause(s) people to agree, with respect to Ministry and Marriage, with the egalitarian assertion on page 13 of ‘Discovering Biblical Equality…’ is an initiative of the Spirit is the very point at issue. It can only be decided by a scrutiny of what the Bible says which is, I agree, ‘humbly open to challenge and fresh understanding’. Unlike the case of preaching the gospel to Gentiles, there is, as I aim to continue to argue, no such fresh understanding, however humbly open to challenge we are, which supports that assertion whereas there are passages which contradict it. Phil Almond Posted by: nersenpaul Sunday 7 November 2010 - 04:32pm hi David - the point is that those excluding the gentiles in the early church were out of step with the Spirit. Being out of step with the Spirit is the same as contradicting the scriptures the Holy Spirit has inspired now, is it not? I agree that we have to divide from if some will not repent of being out of step with the Spirit / condoning what is incompatible with scripture. Paul had to oppose Petert. I am not for incessant indabas for the sake of keeping false teachers in the AC..... But, are those Anglicans who do not support the innovation of WO holding to something incompatible with scripture? If you think they are, do you want to exclude them from the CofE? Making no significant provision is the same as excluding those people. Lots of people left in the past..... now more are getting ready to leave. Some seem quite happy about that but I am glad that people like +Tom are clear in what they believe but also teach what the bible says re weaker brothers and unity. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 6 November 2010 - 10:44pm Nersen, well you may not think I made a strong point to Bp Tom Wright, but the bishop himself wrote back agreeing with me actually! He went on to argue the weaker brother case however. So I asked question 2 in my post below which you do not respond to (and nor did he as a busy bishop - it was gracious of him to respond at all). Your reading of the NT regarding Joppa and Gentiles is inaccurate. At the time that Peter received the dream at Joppa and then visited a gentile's house there is no evidence that those first Christians had any belief that the scriptures supported or taught such a move. Peter clearly didn't because he argued with the dream. When hauled to Jerusalem to explain his behaviour he argues on the basis of obedience to the Spirit not on the basis of any scripture - because at this point he could not point to any scriptures about the gentiles. .... 'if God gave them the same gift who was I to hinder God?' (Acts 11.17) That is why it needed an overwhelming initiative of the Spirit to reveal it and lead the first Christians back to the scriptures for fresh understanding. It is an example of how even our most careful reading of scripture needs to be humbly open to challenge and fresh understanding. You are right to point out that Peter and Paul argued over the gentile issue. So you agree with me that the NY church went ahead with a major change in doctrine and ministry despite the fact it would cause division - contra Bp Tom. Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 6 November 2010 - 01:55pm Hi David - don't think you made a strong point in writing to Tom Wright....because the NT is clear that gentiles should not be excluded.... and St Paul opposed St Peter to his face (no indaba and no compromise) when Peter was in error on this issue....and Peter repented. Now, the CofE is being asked to consider something many Anglicans think goes against scripture....your argument seems to be to point to the early church taking stances which are incompatible with scripture? Hi Mark (1) yes, it is frustrating when the wider church affirms a position many times but we are asked to keep on talking forever about an issue because a minority view wants their view accepted .... I am not thinking of WO; (2) now, when we are being asked to endorse an innovation in the CofE, which takes us further away from 'the church catholic', evangelicals might be persuadable if a scriptural case is made - and I think Tom Wright, Andrew Goddard and others try to do just that...they are the people who can persuade me, not those with a rights based agenda and who also condone other agendas even if they are incompatible with scripture. But, I am glad that people like +Wright state their position, with a lor of respect for scripture, but do not then go to a position that excludes those who will not accept the innovation they support... a humble position and consistent with NT teaching re how to treat 'weaker brothers' who are not sinning, even if you think they are wrong? Posted by: Mark Bennet Friday 5 November 2010 - 06:39pm Nersen If there will be a great division, then in reality it already exists. The vast majority of people in the church seem to me to be fed up with a General Synod which has voted several times by large majorities that women should become bishops, and has been told several times that the issue hasn't yet been decided. I am not convinced that the division is as great as it is sometimes argued to be - that it feels big to those involved, I don't doubt - but arguments from feelings can exaggerate and heighten the sense of conflict. And I have also argued, based on scripture, that women should be appointed as bishops in the church if they are discerned as having the gifts and charisms necessary. It isn't about "promoting" women but giving the church the freedom to discern God at work amongst us. The recent statistics of Resolution A, B and C parishes suggest to me that the division is unlikely to be "great", though there will be arguments about how significant it will be (a small division can be significant without being great). I believe that the evident God-given gifts and charisms of women in the church have been ignored for far to long to the detriment of our collective mission to the nation. Yes, I do disagree with Tom Wright on this. Posted by: DavidR Friday 5 November 2010 - 04:45pm A few comments on recent posts 1. Bp Tom Wright believes that the NT church never proceeded with major change if it would cause division. He outined this view in his last Diocesan Synod address in Durham. On these grounds he opposes making women bishops if it causes 'large division'. I wrote to him pointing out that on that basis the NT would never have proceeded to include the Gentiles. It is clear that this remained a deep running division through the early church with traditionalist/Judaisers resisting the decision. It is entirely likely that some left the church over this 'revisionist' teaching. Today of course we support and applaud the courage and integrity of that small and vulnerable church that was willing to risk and take on the 'opposition' for the sake of a theological principle. 2. Who decides what constitutes 'large division' (which grows to 'great' division in Nersen's next post). A two thirds majority is a very significant majority by many measure. At what point does this argument become effectively minority control? This question is a very neccessary critique of the 'weaker brother' argument when working through divsions in the community. 3. There is already 'great division' in a church that has for a very long time excluded women or treated them as less important than men in the way this one has. It is very revealing which division is presently considered more important in the present debate. It is arguably more of the same. Posted by: nersenpaul Friday 5 November 2010 - 03:18pm Hi Mark - I am with Tom Wright (quoted below)....best not to make a change right now if it is going to lead to great division. Seems that you disagree with that position? Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 4 November 2010 - 06:06pm Nersen I am not in the 'no provision' camp. I do make a distinction, though, between different kinds of provision. "Structural" provision which renders us two churches pretending to be one is dishonest - and I come back again to the question I ask of those opposed to the ordination of women: do you believe that I am a christian, that my orders as a male priest ordained at the hands of a male bishop are lawful and valid, that I am a proper minister of word and sacrament? If the answer to this is no, we are already two churches. If the answer is yes, then provisions which reflect the truth of that answer are required, and the structural provisions which have been proposed don't do it. So, supposing us to be one Church, I support pastoral provision based on the assumption that proper adult relationships can and should exist between members of the one church, and that the Holy Spirit is at work amongst us. I think such provision is viable and appropriate. There will be problems, because none of us can deny our sin, but 'put not your trust in princes'. Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 4 November 2010 - 08:48am more good sense from Bishop Tom Wright..... Speaking to the Church of Ireland Gazette editor in an interview while visiting Ireland, Bishop Tom Wright, former Bishop of Durham and now a Research Professor at the University of St Andrews, has said that the Church of England should not proceed to the consecration of women as Bishops if the move were to create a large division. He said: “my own position is quite clear on this, that I have supported women Bishops in print and in person. I’ve spoken in Synod in favour of going that route, but I don’t think it’s something that ought to be done at the cost of a major division in the Church.” Bishop Wright warned that if the Church of England were not able to resolve the matter “a ‘quick fix’ resolution” would be “a recipe for long-term disaster”… And asked about the Anglican Covenant, he said this: Asked if he thought the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant, aimed at keeping the global Communion together, would become a reality, Bishop Wright said: “I think so, because I don’t think really there’s any alternative.” He said the Communion could not afford to have “the kind of unstructured mess that we’ve had”. Bishop Wright said that the Covenant “doesn’t foreclose on particular issues”. Rather, he explained, it “provides a framework within which you can have the discussion in a way which tries to keep all parties at the table. obviously if parties decide to walk away from the table that’s their business, but without some sort of a structured framework what happens is, as always, that the loudest voices tend to win, or at least drown out the other ones, and I have seen that happen and it’s not a pretty sight.” Asked to comment on what would happen if the Church of England rejected the Covenant proposal, Bishop Wright said: “That is always a possibility, and if that happens, then I suppose the thing would be dead in the water. but that’s a notional possibility which I don’t actually see as realistic.” Posted by: nersenpaul Thursday 4 November 2010 - 07:58am Thanks for your reply, Mark...do you think it is fine to make no provision for those who do not want to accept an innovation re bishops and merely wish the CofEto stay consistent with what they signed up to and what most of "the church catholic" today and in the past 2000 yrs still holds to? You seem to be in the "no provision" camp .... unlike the ABC and ++York. I notice the ABC has even questioned whether the CofE of wise to move on WO given that puts it further out of fellowship with many. I am not so worried about that fellowship if it is about politics....but am open to a persuasive scriptural case being made. Thanks David......glad to hear there is assessment (but do many underperformers get fired or is it quite easy for people to keep jobs (and houses) for years and decades even if hardly anyone comes along as a result of their poor work?) and, no, I have not seen the forms...... but I have seen inadequate clergy in jobs for years and congregations dwindling but nothing happening to change the situation. Normally, the blame is put on all those not coming but I suspect low attendance is often more to do with the teaching (and eccentricity) of some not attracting many given other CofE churches nearby are full. Probably not allowed to say so, but not all in and not all going into ministry in the CofE are strong candidates......some because of their dodgy theology (and ethics as they sign up to a job and house while disagreeing with core CofE articles and doctrines...fingers crossed while making vows, I guess); and some just because they do not have the many skills vicars need but selection does not always seem to set high standards in communication and personal skills....or theology consistent with the scriptures / core CofE articles. Because the ministry is important and the job is very difficult, people who are not suited should not be retained because it is the people in the pews who suffer.....or, more likely, just stop coming. It is also not fair on those who lack the skills to give them jobs they cannot do well. As for bishops, given the role is largely teaching and looking after people in parish ministry, it is not surprising that people parachuted in from universities and cathedrals often struggle when they have little experience in that work.....you wouldn't want a surgeon doing your heart transplant who has never done one but has had nice university or medical school admin jobs - however good academic credentials may be, a proven track record in doing something is not a lot to ask in those given difficult, important work and responsibilty for others in a particular role. Posted by: Mark Bennet Wednesday 3 November 2010 - 08:28pm Dear Nersen, I am in contact with very many people who hold radical (positive) views on the ordination and consecration of women. Of course human rights get mentioned in a world in which ethics have been converted into rights - but to suggest that the role of women in the church is principally a rights agenda is to reduce the argument to the secular. I know of very few people who argue the ordination of women principally as a human right. The principal arguments I hear (and with which I associate myself) are: 1 We see gifts and charisms of leadership in women who are already in the church, we can discern their vocations - and since we discern these as God given, for the benefit of the church, we recognise them and appoint women to those posts for which they are equipped and gifted by God. 2 The Kingdom of God, in contrast to the kingdom of this world, reflects the radical equality of men and women created in the image and likeness of God. The Bible calls us to pray and work for the coming of the Kingdom and we do this by embracing the values of the kingdom, rather than selling out to the values of the world. So far as human rights are concerned, the argument of those in favour of the ordination of women is principally that rights should not be expressed in law in such a way as to prevent the church from receiving the gifts and charisms of women, or from expressing the biblical values of radical equality which inform our understanding of God's Kingdom. So we seek that women as well as men should have their true vocations to leadership discerned. Posted by: DavidR Wednesday 3 November 2010 - 04:38pm Dear Nersen, Let me encourage you. You do not seem to be aware just how much is going on. Ministry support, training, mission and resourcing has never had such high priority at all levels of the CofE. Some examples: 1. Under Common Tenure all licensed ministers (ordained or lay) are now having/will have mandatory reviews offered by trained reviewers, every 1-2 years. These will focus around support, encouragement, competencies, spiritual development and further training needs. Goals will be set and training resources identified and these will be revisited with each review. 2. A capability procedure exists for clergy who are struggling with their job. This will include the offer of mentoring, further training and developing competencies, careful setting of targets and monitoring of progress. This procedure could lead to dismissal on grounds of competency, within employment law. 3. Mentoring, work consultancy and supervision are now routinely made available to clergy - not least in transition into new post or work structures (eg ministry teams). 4. Ministry and leadership development courses are now run in most regions or diocese around the country - typically two residentials and with mentoring in between. I personally know of a number of clergy who were struggling who have found this transforming. 5. Each diocese is now required to produce its own mission and vision plan. May diocese are now requiring each parish to produce their own Mission Action Plan and are training parish clergy to work with these. 6. No diocese wants to pour money into failing churches or clergy who have lost heart/vision for the job. That issue is being faced all the time. Clergy are being helped out of ministry where neccessary for all concerned. (But helping clergy to make a career shift is not easy. You seem to assume that the cofe is above employment law at this point and can just fire people). Churches are warned and given targets for their growth or face losing their full time clergy next time around. This happens. 7. And have you ever seen the forms that clergy have to fill in if they are deemed to have potential for a senior post? It includes an extended personal vision statement and full outline of skills, gifts and experience. It is a very thorough process. I know all this because for the last 10 years I have worked in resourcing these areas. Of course none of this is perfect. This is a church at full stretch and with limited resources. But I think is is impressive and deserves some credit. Posted by: nersenpaul Wednesday 3 November 2010 - 08:00am David - what disappointed me was that many Fulcrum leaders and and a statement from Fulcrum were not supportive of any meaningful provision for evangelicals with whom they disagree..... with those most focussed on the WO agenda getting support from Fulcrum leaders, I think Carl has a point that we are just in a political process which grinds towards an inevitable conclusion. It didn't need to be that way.....but that is how it is. Being a bishop is not a human right....it is not a rung on the ladder in some civil rights battle, no more than being a doctor is a right....we need qualified people with good track records. We should have people who know what they are doing in parish ministry and can look after people engaged in it. To get such a group, I think we should stop financing all the dead and dying churches which are on life support from central funds because some vicars are not up to the job / are false teachers and should find alternative employment (I guess we are not allowed to admit that some are not up to the job / are false teachers and that is why nobody comes to their churches?). Those vicars who can lead viable churches to which the great British public want to come and those with small churches who can find larger ones to partner with because they have genuine common cause, they will survive ..... the leaders of those large and small churches are the ones who are probably doing the most effective work in parishes..... from that group, we should find bishops....people who know what they are doing and show qualities that they will be able to help and care for those engaged in parish ministry. It is not a human right to be a bishop.... Posted by: DavidR Monday 1 November 2010 - 08:47am Carl, Thank you for continuing to engage with me but we are clearly not going to agree. And I find your language extraordinarily violent. An agonisingly slow consultative process over decades is just reduced to an act of murder. It is the language of warfare. No wonder 'trust' and 'grace' feel empty here. 'Your post is a classic argument from experience' ... yes it is - and so is yours. I have no problem with that. We never read scripture outside of a history. We read it and work out our obedience to it in the midst of raw dillemmas and complex human story and what we trust to be the compelling of the Spirit. The Word must still take flesh. That's what makes it Christian. I have pointed out elsewhere that Peter at Joppa and the Jersualem Council are a core Biblical examples of this process - the relationship of lived experience, of Word and Spirit.. I would be astonished if the decision to include gentiles did not force out at least some Jewish believers on exactly the gorund that you accuse me and others of today. Peter was surely accused of overturning 'the imperatives of Scripture'. In his response to the command in the dream he makes it clear that is his understanding too. The process led the church to a fresher reading of the word - but not without painful division. That is why I believe the process matters as much as the content. Grace and truth are to be found here. And truth still sets free. Posted by: carl Sunday 31 October 2010 - 03:31pm David "You seem to assume that all this is done, dusted and lost" I think it is lost. The claimed margins are just too narrow. One man falls ill. A second unexpectedly faces the death of his mother. A third decides he wants to be "Hero for a Day" and see his picture on the front page of the Times of London. But assume I am wrong, and the motion is defeated. The traditionalists are still fighting from a position of strategic defense. It is axiomatic that a war cannot be won from a position of strategic defense. Battles can be won, but not wars. So if the motion is defeated, the war of attrition will simply continue. The activists will return again and again and again until the walls are breached, and the battlements occupied. The traditionalists, trapped and devoid of maneuver, must maintain the resolve to repel every attack, for if they fail even once, they lose all. They must do this indefinitely knowing the enemy's will to continue is firm. They must do this indefinitely knowing they lack the power to drive the enemy from before their walls. "and the process is but a cynical charade." Yes, I would call it a charade, but I would not call it cynical. It is perhaps better described as charitable euthanasia. One puts down the old ways as one would put down an old dog who is blind and arthritic and incontinent. After all, you yourself have said it: "In truth this journey towards partnership of women and men in ministry is having to overcome centuries of ignorance and prejudice – and it still feels that way." You seek to find an "honorable solution" to a problem that you believe is fundamentally rooted in "centuries of ignorance and prejudice." One does not seek to co-exist with ignorance and prejudice. One seeks to overthrow ignorance and prejudice. Allowances might be made for those who are too old to change, but there is no thought of allowing them to propagate their "ignorant and prejudiced" doctrines. The old is passing away. The new has come. This is why trust cannot be extended. This is why grace is insufficient. They who must be trusted to extend the grace are the same agents who seek ultimately to destroy that which they have been entrusted to protect. Your post is otherwise a classic argument from experience - as if experience can overturn the imperatives of Scripture. Here the argument returns to its origin, where you deny what I affirm, and the wheel turns on its axis once again. It did not have to be this way. You could have received everything you wanted and more. All you had to do was provide structural isolation for those who stood with the historic doctrines. But a blood price was demanded. The ultimate proof of the authority of Women Bishops must be the compelled submission of those who reject the spiritual authority of women. If such submission was not compelled, it was said that women would be seen as "second-class bishops." Instead, the vanquished must be paraded before the victors, so that the victors may glory in their triumph, and the vanquished may know they have been defeated. Thus you seek to coerce the conscience of those who only crime is to agree with what the church has always and everywhere taught. You label them 'ignorant and prejudiced' and then wonder why they do not trust your protestations of good will. I do not wonder at all. carl Posted by: MattS Sunday 31 October 2010 - 08:53am While I agree with Elaine that it's generally better to listen to a debate before you decide how to vote, I'm not sure how realistic this is in this case. The anglo-catholics have repeatedly explained why a code of practice can't provide for their needs. Unless they hadn't thought through their position properly beforehand, they are now going to block the legislation, surely? In fact, the way this issue has been handled, it seems to me that the happiest people will be the most hardline opponents. I read one opponent on another blog wishing the archbishops amendment to fail and quoting Joe Stalin "the worse, the better" - the worse for the opponents the more likely the whole thing was to fail, which is of course what he wanted. Posted by: DavidR Saturday 30 October 2010 - 08:13pm @font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; Carl, You seem to assume that all this is done, dusted and lost - and the process is but a cynical charade. Well others on your side are claiming the new Synod has enough anti supporters to block it. So I wish I had your robust belief on this one. But the notion that the whole church is now only the side of ordained women and that everyone else is some kind of victim … well that is news to many ordained women for a start. Have you talked to any? It is not a level playing field out here. You use words like ‘trust’ and ‘grace’ as if anyone would be daft to rely on those alone. I thought they were the heart of the gospel. But if there is a group (predominantly men) who are feeling that the Church is ignoring their concerns, not listening to them, undervaluing their ministry and forcing them out … well there is another group that has known that feeling for a very long time. The present movement to ordain women in the CofE began just 100 years ago alongside the suffragettes movement and the campaign to give women the vote. (This is also now known to be the time the Church of England peaked in membership. It has been steadily in decline since then. Why does no one ask if ordaining men has worked?). There were deaconesses in the CofE from 1871 though always made clear this was not the same as real male deacons. It was 130 years (1990) until the Church of England first produced a report on their ministry and discovered that of the 999 women deacons only 63 were in pastoral charge of parishes and these were where men could not be found to work. 55% had cause to complain of their conditions of work. Through the 1930s the budget for male ordinand’s training was £4215 pa. The Central Council for Women’s Church Work at this time received a budget of just £250 for their work and nothing for training at all. In 1929 a statement to Convocation had revealed that women employed in parish work were living close to poverty line. They were paid half the stipend of a male curate and without rent free accommodation. Do you know how many women have felt forced out of the church over a much greater period, Carl? Are you interested? Maude Royden is the figure many look back to. Involved in politicial, pastoral and social work in the early 1900’s she discovered a preaching gift and her popularity grew in London. She was invited to preach the three hour service at St Botolph’s . The Bishop of London heard of this and banned her from the church. They moved to the church hall which was packed and people were crowded round the windows. (Women at the time were only allowed to preach to women and children and not from the pulpit or lectern). Her ministry was rejected by the Church of England she accepted the post of assistant preacher at the City Temple. In truth this journey towards partnership of women and men in ministry is having to overcome centuries of ignorance and prejudice – and it still feels that way. This quote from a respected woman theologian involved in ministry training is one I keep by me to remind me of the journey we are on, and because I, as a man, still have so much listening to do. We have hardly begin to understand the world we have created here and the depths from which we need redeeming. ‘....a feeling somehow grew that, in the texts of theology, my women students and I did not exist. Something important about us and our lives had not gone into forming this rich doctrinal, liturgical and pastoral mixture. Somehow women’s voices had not been heard, and we were all the losers for it. I remember thinking on one particularly grim day, ‘It doesn’t matter, because God loves women!’ and somehow, and to my surprise, this recognition made me weep with relief. Of course, I had never consciously doubted that God loved women. But somehow the barrage of ancient opinion, the structures into which one was perceived to fit oddly, the little niggling ....negativities which one felt in a place which fitted the male candidates like a glove, all conspired to make one feel that women were not really quite as good as men, that God didn’t care about women quite as much as men, that women’s sufferings (so many of them not even figuring on the ethics or pastoral courses) did not matter quite as much as those of men, that what happened to women in the home didn’t matter quite as much as what happened to men in the workplace. In short, that somehow women didn’t figure except as sources of gynecological problems in Christian ethics, or people to make tea’. Janet Soskice. I for one am longing for this to change .... Posted by: Mark Bennet Saturday 30 October 2010 - 05:19pm carl I think it would help your argument if you were a little more careful - you write of receiving "only by grace", as if grace alone is not sufficient. This raises all sorts of questions, not least whether you are suggesting that it is possible to receive grace through the ministry of a woman. Perhaps the word 'grace' is wrong?? Mark Posted by: carl Saturday 30 October 2010 - 03:42pm Mark Bennet "I'm sure you have reasons for writing what you have written." I have written what I have simply because it is true. "Even if trust has broken down, imagine a female bishop who did not make proper provision for a parish opposed to her ministry ... life would become untenable." For whom? What is the offended parish to do? Complain that they have not been given what the Bishop is not required to give? She is free to extend provision or withhold provision as she sees fit. Provision is not made under obligation but as an act of condescension. Opponents are owed nothing. What they receive, they receive only by grace. But assume she is generous, and provision is made. Eventually the priest retires or dies. What then becomes of the congregation? How will provision be made for the congregation when like-minded leadership has been essentially proscribed? The congregation may say to the Bishop "We want someone like Father Bob." And they wil be told "There are no priests like Father Bob anymore. You must accept that the days of provision have come to an end." And then will come the end of the Code of Practice. The leadership withers, and the laity scatters. Establish this code, and within a generation there will be no more opposition to WO in the CoE. The opposition will retire, and scatter, and die. It will have no choice. But then we all know this is true, because that was the whole point of the Code from the beginning. It's not to make provision. It's a paliative to make the dying less painful. carl Posted by: wggrace Saturday 30 October 2010 - 01:48pm Nersen Paul asks the question (almost) of how successful WO has been. As someone who broadly speaking has no objection to the W bit of WO (I remain unconvinced about ordination in the Anglican sense), may I offer two downsides to WO. First, before women were ordained, there were 100s of gifted dynamic women in the churches who were not ordained but who had a major role in running the churches. One consequence of this was that a church with a tendency to excessive clericalism had a counteracting reliance on the laity, that is, the women. By encouraging so many of these women to get ordained, the tendency to clericalism has received a most unfortunate boost. The answer may not be to abandon WO, I will leave answering that to those who believe in ordination, but I do think more needs to be done to boost the role of the laity. Secondly, in the conservative churches the objections made to WO has led them, I strongly suspect, to harden their opposition to the role of women in any kind of teaching ministry in the church. I know that in the church where I currently attend, women are not able to 'lead' a homegroup as women are not able to teach. I cannot prove this but I suspect that this was very rare until WO made the issue a leading issue. So WO has made the role of women worse in the churches where WO is rejected. 
Posted by: Jody
Saturday 30 October 2010 - 12:32pm
Hi I can mention plenty of women who are fabulous priests and plenty of men who have been fabulous too. i'm not sure what the preoccupation with size is that men have, but i'm sure that freud would have a field day. just for the record, i take my approach to ordination extremely seriously, it is a mark of my obedience to God and it is a much more difficult decision to say 'yes' to than when my (now) husband asked me to marry him. in most part because when i said yes to him, i was entirely sure that he wouldn't turn round and kick me in the teeth once we were married. jody Posted by: nersenpaul Saturday 30 October 2010 - 12:01pm I guess one is not allowed to ask how successful WO has been? I guess "success" can be defined so it means little more than taking a role - but I am interested to know, to support WO, if there are examples of people taking over dying churches and turning them around, or coming to viable congregations and growing them significantly. No doubt some will say growth etc are not necessarily signs of anything good (especially if they cannot come up with (m)any strong examples).... but if there are people who have achieved much in parish ministry, they ought to have a stronger claim to be considered for appointment as bishops.... (think we have too many examples over the years of people from cushy cathedral and university jobs failing to do much good and sometimes doing harm as bishops,or being way out of their depth outside the SCR.....prefer to see more people who have shown they know what they are doing in the real world, in parishes....given the job of a bishop is largely about looking after people in parish ministry.....those people with a strong record in real world ministry ought to be most help to others in parish ministry rather than someone with little or no experience...) Posted by: carl Saturday 30 October 2010 - 04:00am David, "You only present one side don't you?" Well, someone has to. There are legions of people willing to declaim for the opposition. "You might consider why ordained women should trust this church any more than those who oppose their presence." Perhaps because they and their allies control it? "This church voted to ordain them ..." Which it shouldn't have done, but the question is long since decided and the consequences must now be accepted. "... and then immediately put in place legal discriminatory legislation for those who want to avoid their ministry." Because there wouldn't have been any WO without that "legal discriminatory legislation." "There was talk of guarding two integrities but if this was serious then women too would have been offered 'protection' from those whose ministry they could not accept. But they have no protection at all - nor would ask for any. " What protection did they require? Who are these people whose ministry they could not accept? What threat could they credibly offer? "At their ordination, as for men, we (the church ) are asked 'will you uphold them in their ministry' - and we continue to endlessly allow a significant minority to debate their validity and presence as if we never made the decision at all. No women question whether those who oppose them are valid ministers of the gospel. But no such courtesy is offered in return." How is one who opposes WO supposed to recognize as valid the ministry of one he considers invalidly ordained? This amounts to demanding of opponents "You may believe what you like, but you cannot act on those beliefs." "It is painful for both sides ..." But of course only one side is being offered the choice of "Compromise, or leave." In practical terms, the pain would seem to be mal-distributed. "...and the reason it is so painful is because we are committed to trying to find an honourable way through this." There is no honorable way through this conflict that requires those who reject the ordination of women to submit to the authority of women. That unfortunately is the one non-negotiable requirement of those that support Women Bishops. That unfortunately is also the governing assumption behind the CoP. It demands an irrevocable recognition of the authority of a Woman Bishop in exchange for a very revocable promise of 'provision' at her pleasure. "It wouldn't hurt me nearly so much to just walk away from those I disagree with on this." But they are being forced to walk away, and not you. If it hurts so much, then why do you support forcing the issue? Because you think the principle of authority is worth the imposition of the pain. You are willing to impose the cost on others because you consider protecting the authority of a Woman Bishop to be the greater good. carl Posted by: Philip Mounstephen Friday 29 October 2010 - 09:56pm I thought Elaine's piece was excellent, and agree with almost every word - except for the description of those opposed to women bishops as being 'on the Catholic and Reformed edges'. The Church of England is Catholic and Reformed at its heart and we cannot allow these concepts to be abrogated to the fringe. Reform certainly do not have a monopoly on being reformed, nor traditional Anglo-Catholics on being catholic. Posted by: DavidR Friday 29 October 2010 - 09:26pm Carl You only present one side don't you? You might consider why ordained women should trust this church any more than those who oppose their presence. This church voted to ordain them and then immediately put in place legal discriminatory legislation for those who want to avoid their ministry. There was talk of guarding two integrities but if this was serious then women too would have been offered 'protection' from those whose ministry they could not accept. But they have no protection at all - nor would ask for any. At their ordination, as for men, we (the church ) are asked 'will you uphold them in their ministry' - and we continue to endlessly allow a significant minority to debate their validity and presence as if we never made the decision at all. No women question whether those who oppose them are valid ministers of the gospel. But no such courtesy is offered in return. It is painful for both sides and the reason it is so painful is because we are committed to trying to find an honourable way through this. It wouldn't hurt me nearly so much to just walk away from those I disagree with on this. Posted by: Mark Bennet Friday 29 October 2010 - 07:58pm carl I'm sure you have reasons for writing what you have written. If trust has broken down to the extent that you suggest, I would propose that we need healing for the body of Christ, rather than rules which further divide us. Even if trust has broken down, imagine a female bishop who did not make proper provision for a parish opposed to her ministry ... life would become untenable. I am not sure what you mean by a 'trail of broken promises' - at least I think I know what you mean, but I think such loose rhetoric needs to be justified, and it would be useful to know by whom, and on what authority, the promises you claim were made. I was raising questions, though, not specifically for you, but for those new to General Synod, as seemed to be the tenor of this thread - maybe they will become the agents of healing. I was taught in my ordination training that the one who calls us is faithful. I have had cause to meditate on this text more than once. Posted by: carl Friday 29 October 2010 - 03:15am Mark Bennet "One statement which is being made by some people: 'General Synod has decided to make no provision for people like us' will have to be tested against the content of a Code of Practice" You could hand opponents of Women Bishops a blank sheet of paper and tell them to write their own Code. It will make no difference. The Code is unenforceable. It depends entirely upon the good will of those who must set it in place. It is presented as grace to a supplicant, and it can be withdrawn from the supplicant just as easily. In the end, the Code amounts to nothing more than a statement of "Trust us." And why should anyone offer trust for the sake of this Code given the long trail of broken promises that have led to this point? Only a fool would trust this Code - no matter what it says. It is intended to allow opponents of Women Bishops a fig leaf behind which they may hide until they retire. It is intended to starve those who oppose Women Bishops of leadership. It is the Code of a Hospice - intending to provide for opponents until the die off. That is all it is. carl Posted by: Deleted user 1372 Thursday 28 October 2010 - 11:04pm I am genuinely astonished, even flabbergasted, at the I am really surprised at the ongoing debate on this issue in England. I am disappointed, but not surprised by the less than generous heat expressed by some, and the kind of polemic outlined by Dr Storkey. Women bishops are no longer a rarity in the Anglican Communion. Their work in other provinces is open to review and I know of no-one who doubts their abilities or performance. The core issue then becomes at peculiarly Christian mix of prejudice and principle hinging on personal values about gender issues in society at large and suppositions about the teaching of the Bible. Underpinning the latter is one value, unknown in the church for nearly two millennia and nowhere in our historic formularies, about verbal inspiration on the one hand, an the stunning argument that women clergy and bishops are not part of the historic witness of the church. Both views demand respect from others when, in substance, they neither respect the views of others and are nonsensical when exposed to the clear light of Christian experience and especially the emergence of gender equality in the church over the past two centuries. Ian Welch, Australia Posted by: Mark Bennet Thursday 28 October 2010 - 09:26pm One statement which is being made by some people: 'General Synod has decided to make no provision for people like us' will have to be tested against the content of a Code of Practice, which is precisely how General Synod has so far agreed to make provision. New members will have to wrestle, as the retiring members did, with the notion of affirming that we are one church against the various proposals for radical structural division. Further, there is clearly some division amongst those opposed to the orditantopn and consecration of women as to what provision would be acceptable to them. One inflexible statutory scheme runs the risk of satisfying very few. A flexible Code of Practice could actually deliver more than they currently imagine, as well as maintaining the highset possible degree of communion within the church. Posted by: DavidR Thursday 28 October 2010 - 05:52pm This is such a helpful and wise piece. I do hope it has been offered to the CEN or Church Times. Posted by: Deleted user 2286 Thursday 28 October 2010 - 05:18pm 'That way, I believe we do stand some chance of hearing what God might have to say to the Church of England.' Now that is a thought !
Posted by: Jody
Thursday 28 October 2010 - 09:35am
Dear Friends we have just published 'Who won General Synod elections and what hope for women bishops?' by Elaine Storkey. please use this thread for discussion. blessings, Jody |
LATEST
|
As the Church House machinery grinds into action, mailing out a truckload of papers for November’s inauguration of the new General Synod, it is interesting to reflect on how this new Synod will respond to some of the issues it inherits from the old. At the centre of these is, of course, the draft legislation on women bishops. Canon Simon Kilwick, chairman of the Catholic Group cautions against any tacit assumption that this will go through in 2012, since there has been a ‘shift in the landscape’ of Synod. However, there is always a shift in the landscape of synod, as change occurs after every election: older members retire, some leave for many different reasons, and others are not re-elected. What this current ‘shift’ actually represents needs therefore to be carefully interpreted.