Desiring What is True or Defending Desire?
Reform's presentation to the Rochester Commission (concerning Women in the Episcopate)
But if desire had not forestalled reason: if the understanding of the truth had moved us to desire what was true: instead of trying to set up our desires as doctrines, we should let our doctrines dictate our desires; there would be no contradiction of the truth, for every one would begin by desiring what was true, not by defending the truth of that which he desired.(Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate X 1)
1. Introduction
Hilary of Poitiers has given us both a title and an opening thought.
Thanks
As the Reform chairman, I thank the Commision for receiving our presentation.
I am handing out a copy of Reform's original submission (see Appendix) and a
booklet by Carrie Sandom on women's ministries.
The Reform Network - Who
We Are
The Reform Network has about 1600 members (c. 2:1 lay to ordained) with 14 diocesan
groups and, in the last few years, 33 churches as members. Our primary aim (as
our literature always states) is evangelism – “to reach the nation
for Christ”. But clearly part of our work and concern is to see the Church
of England hold to its Reformation roots. An example of this concern to maintain
Biblical foundations prompted our previous written submission to this Commission.
At the outset, we’d like this Commission to be clear about Reform’s commitment to mission – it is our number one priority, as I have stated, and the CRA’s statistics confirm that it is churches of our particular doctrinal convictions that are holding their own or growing; to the Church
of England – we have no wish to leave (if we had, our name might have
been Remove or Depart and not Reform); and to women and women’s ministry – we wish in every way to promote, model and pioneer Biblical patterns of ministry for women and men (our brochure and comment states: “We affirm the unique value of women’s ministry in the local congregation, but also in the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests-in-charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate. While believing in this divine order, we actively support the inclusion of women in ministry teams in our churches. Reform is seeking ways to create new posts for women and to make more training and funding available.”)
The Problems We Face
The Context
If there was a problem with the General Synod decisionof November 1992 (neatly,
perhaps too neatly, usually referred to for evangelicals as ‘headship’),
how much more now, as we face the possibility of women in the episcopate. The
last ten years have been called a time of ‘Reception’. However, instead
of being years of careful waiting, listening and discussion to see if real consensus
will emerge in the Church of England, in the Anglican Communion and in the wider
church, it has been a decade of increasing assumption that this innovation is
right and will reach its culmination in women bishops, but also of outright
campaigning – positively, WATCH for the consecration of ‘Bishop Dawn’,
and negatively, GRAS with its often strident call for the irrevocable rescinding
of the Act of Synod. The actuality of Reception, therefore, has been a problem.
We are concerned too that the debate appears to be driven more by culture and
ideology (e.g. unisex egalitarianism and feminism) than by Scripture and theology.
The constant mishandling of Galatians 3:28 is perhaps the most obvious example
– exegesis without due regard to context or comparing Scripture with Scripture
(as Article XX expects).
The Current Issue - Women
in the Episcopate
The issue before us of women in the Episcopate is not, we submit, an issue of
rights, or abilities, or equal opportunities, but rather of God’s order
in the human family and in the household of faith, that is in marriage and in
the church. We submit that the Bible teaches that men and women are equal in
salvation and status, and have equal but different and complementary roles in
their gospel partnership. Their equality is not total identity, but a rich complementarity.
Structure of our Submission
As we’re trying to be good Anglicans, our presentation will appeal to Scripture,
Tradition and Reason. With the words of Lambeth 1988 and 1998 in mind, we maintain
that of the three (even more of the four today, if you add experience) Scripture
is ‘the controlling authority’ (the phrase from Lambeth 1988).
2. Scripture and Theology - Mike Ovey
Female Episcopacy Does Not Support, But Subverts, Salvation History
It is not always realised that there is great theological depth to the concerns of some evangelicals on the issue of female episcopacy. Let me outline just some.
Female Episcopacy Displaces
the Word of God
We have grave misgivings that female episcopacy dose not support but subverts
salvation history. This is so, first, because it displaces the Word of God from
its salvation-historical place. We represent the Word of God in salvation history
in three phases: rightfully in place; wrongfully displaced; and rightfully re-emplaced.
More precisely, Genesis 1 and 2
show us the Word rightfully in place. It is ruling and truthful, for God speaks
and it is so. Genesis 3 features, though, a three-fold denial of the Word. It
is treated as: unruling; untruthful and unblessing. Just those themes are present
as Solomon disbelieves and disobeys God’s Word (1 Kings 11: 1-13) and as
Israel behaves similarly (2 Kings 17:1-23). But, in mercy, God re-emplaces His
Word - something foreshadowed by Abraham. Genesis 15:6 is indeed critical here.
Abraham believes God. And then fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus, the living
Word, whom we believe as true, obey as Lord, and in whom we are blessed.
In the redeemed people of God, the Word of God is rightfully re-emplaced. This,
of course, is authentic Anglican ecclesiology as Article 19 makes clear:
‘The visible Church of Christ
is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached,
and the Sacraments be duly ministered…’
This means that if we as a community
displace the Word, then we mirror, not the redeemed community, but the unredeemed.
It is for this reason that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 matters so much. And we remain
persuaded by the work of commentators such as Mounce that those verses do apply
to the proposal for female episcopacy.
Female Episcopacy Displaces
the Order of Creation.
A related salvation-historical question arises from the question of creation
order. Genesis 1 and 2, we contend, features a rightly ordered cosmos including,
despite arguments to the contrary, Adam’s responsibility over Eve established
in Genesis 2. In Genesis 3 that order is displaced as Adam disobeys God, refuses
his responsibility and Eve ‘rules’ him. In Christ, the cosmos is,
and is to be, re-ordered. And this features a restoration of creation order.
Hence the retention of order in marriage and the symbolism of restored and accepted
male responsibility in church order in 1 Timothy 2. Female episcopacy, we consider,
would symbolise not creation re-ordered, but creation disordered.
Nor does Galatians 3:28 present a contradictory pattern: the context is one
of distinctives barring people from the status of children of Abraham.
Now, we know full well not all share these views on these theological questions,
but we contend that it is the depths of those very differences that make it
so highly inappropriate to coerce our beliefs by installing female episcopacy.
A Flawed Appeal to Justice
We should also mention the appeal to justice that has sometimes been made.
Egalitarianism
In terms of a thorough-going egalitarianism, a key thought is that different
roles entail unequal values. But this is not necessarily so. We would point
here to the Trinity and the indications biblically of an order in intra-trinitarian
relations. John 5 provides a classic indicator here, as well, of course, as
the general testimony of the Church Fathers. J. Moltmann is, I suppose, a frequently-cited
theologian espousing egalitarianism in the Trinity, but we find his work in
this respect biblically flawed. The non-equation of role and value is evident
in the life of Jesus and other relationships.
Like Cases Must be Decided Alike
Justice has also been appealed to in the sense that the 1992 vote provides a
binding precedent. We submit it does not, because this proposal is even more
coercive. Even if the 1992 vote did provide a binding precedent, this would
logically require a further Act of Synod to protect the minority - for like
cases must be decided alike.
We note too that the retrospective consequences of this proposal are obnoxious
from a justice viewpoint.
The Proposal is not Anti-discriminatory but Discriminatory
It has been said that the proposal for female episcopacy is anti-discriminatory.
We suggest on the contrary that it is in fact highly discriminatory. It discriminates
against women - if they happen to hold particular views.
It is, then, far too simplistic to say it favours women. It favours women with
certain opinions. It does not as such protect a sex: it prosecutes a belief.
Nor, in fact, is this proposal needed to protect women’s ministry, as Carrie
Sandom will now show.
3. Scripture and Good Practice - Carrie Sandom
I was training for the diaconate at Wycliffe Hall when the vote to ordain women to the presbyterate was passed in 1992. Many of the women I trained with believed that their true vocation would now be recognised. The celebrations in college that night were noisy and insensitive (I particularly remember one woman saying to me “I’ll be a bishop within 20 years”), but they also heralded the beginning of a subtle and covert ostracism, that remains to this day.
The Act of Synod
The Act of Synod has sought to affirm and protect those who hold to the traditional
view of women’s ministry but in reality we have become a persecuted minority;
so much so that the views of organisations like GRAS, with their vitriolic vilification
of anyone opposed to the ordination of women to the presbyterate, are not just
tolerated but enthusiastically endorsed. Whatever happened to the notion of
caring for the weaker brother or defending the cause of the powerless and the
oppressed?
Three Reasons Why Women
in the Episcopate would be a mistake
I am convinced theologically that it was a mistake to ordain women to the presbyterate;
and so I must respectfully ask you to re-consider any proposal to allow women
into the episcopate, as I fear that this too would be a terrible mistake –
with devastating consequences.
My reasons for this are three-fold.
i Women in the episcopate will confirm, once again, the church’s departure from the clear teaching of Scripture.
Men and women are equal before God in status, dignity and humanity but have
different roles to play within the family and the church. The complementarity
of men and women in ministry is as important as it is within marriage, as both
need each other to fulfil their God-given roles. God has set out in His Word
how husbands and wives are to function together within the nuclear family, and
how men and women in ministry are to function together as they pastor God’s
family – the church. God has given men the task of leading the church as
a whole and given women the task of teaching and training other women.
This means that the church cannot be pastored effectively without men and women
working together and each needs the other in order to be able to function properly.
This explains why God has gifted both men and women with spiritual gifts. There
is no distinction between men and women on how spiritual gifts are distributed
although, when it comes to teaching gifts, there are differences in how these
gifts are to be used. The Trinity gives us a model of how it is possible for
equality of being and diversity of function to operate together. No-one would
say that the role of God the Son is inferior to the role of God the Father,
nor that the Holy Spirit’s role, because He submits to both the Father
and the Son, doesn’t constitute a full ministry.
The Biblical principle of male headship and female submission needs to be upheld
as a way of ordering relationships within marriage and the church. I believe
that Jesus Himself serves as an example of both – in His humble submission
to His Father’s will in the garden of Gethsemane and His sacrificial leadership
of the church as He gave up His life for her at Calvary. This pattern of sacrificial
leadership and humble submission needs to be modelled within marriage and the
church. The feminist agenda tells us that equality of being necessitates the
removal of all gender distinctions and insists on identical roles for men and
women. God’s Word demands a complementarity of roles that has its roots
in the Godhead itself.
ii Women in the episcopate will not enrich the leadership of the church as a whole but rather undermine it.
The essence of leadership is service – humble submission to the will of
God in order to serve the people of God. Jesus submitted Himself to His Father’s
will in order to serve the church. Women cannot serve the church of God unless
they first submit to the will of God. By seeking to grasp hold of the leadership
role that God has reserved for men, women are in danger of neglecting their
God-given responsibility to other women. This undermines the pattern of leadership
God intends for the church and maligns His Word. To say that ministry to women
is restrictive and does not constitute a full ministry is to deny women of their
worth and demonstrates a covert misogyny that I abhor.
In the last week I have met with a group of women and helped them to apply Hebrews
6 to themselves following a sermon given by a man that they couldn’t fully
identify with. I met with a young widow grieving the loss of her husband and
a student who has an eating disorder. I spoke to a woman who has doubts about
the extent of God’s love for her and another who is at a major crossroads
in her career and worried about the effect it will have on her children. I prepared
two women for baptism and led an enquirers group with a male colleague for men
and women investigating the claims of Christ. I also taught Mark 8 to a group
of women who are in turn going to teach their student groups what ‘denying
yourself and taking up your cross’ might mean for women living in the 21st
century.
No-one can tell me that ministering to these women doesn’t constitute a
full ministry or that my ministry is inferior to those who minister to men.
My male colleagues simply don’t have the time nor is it always appropriate
for them to meet with and talk with women in this way. That’s not to say
that I am an expert teacher in all these areas but I trust that, by the grace
of God, I may be of some help. I fear that women in the episcopate will be playing
at a role reserved for men and neglecting their God-given responsibility of
ministering to other women. Ezekiel 34 has some harsh words for those called
to pastoral ministry who neglect their intended flock.
iii Women in the episcopate will not strengthen the mission of the church but rather emasculate it.
Nobody else seems to be making this point and may be, as a woman, I am the only
one who can. Somebody, somewhere ought to do some research on this – although
it would take a lot of courage to do so. It would be fascinating to find out
what effect women in the presbyterate has had on the church’s mission to
men. It is my observation that most women incumbents are working either in the
inner cities or in rural areas where no-one else wants to go. Or, to put it
another way, most churches do not want a female vicar and given the choice will
appoint a man over a woman every time - and preferably a married man at that.
And what effect do women incumbents have on their congregations? My suspicion
is that most of the lay leadership is female and that the proportion of men
in the congregation decreases over time. I would expect a similar trend to emerge
if women were in the episcopate, with the number of male ordinands falling steadily
in the years that followed. Men will be driven out of the church if women are
too prominent within it and won’t be drawn into it if men are too scarce.
The growing feminisation of the church has been a problem, many would argue,
since the end of the first-world war. If the church is going to be at all credible
in the 21st century it needs to have more men at the heart of its leadership
– men who value the unique role of women, and seek to uphold it, while
at the same time recognising their own unique role as men.
Three reasons then why I think women in the episcopate would be a mistake.
My Greatest Fear
One last thing as I close – at the start of this presentation I mentioned
the subtle and covert ostracism of women in my position since the vote to ordain
women to the presbyterate was passed. I expect that this will continue and become
more overt. We are part of a vulnerable minority who are being bullied and coerced
into accepting something against our conscience and are powerless to do anything
about it. Some would argue that women in the episcopate are more likely to protect
women in my position, but instead they will make us even more vulnerable.
At the very least you must make provision for those of us who cannot accept
women bishops on conscience grounds. But my plea is not for the women in my
position so much as for the women in all our congregations. My greatest fear
in all this is that the unique ministry of women to other women will be lost.
Titus 2 shows us how important this ministry is in the life of the church. We
ignore it at our peril.
4 Scripture and Tradition - Nigel Atkinson
The Question of Anglican Identity
The question of the ordination of
women to the presbyterate and their possible consecration to the Episcopate
raises profound questions with regard to Anglican identity and self understanding.
To be sure, we should not think that such questions about Anglican identity
have not arisen before as in any period of rapid, social and doctrinal change
the Church is obliged to rethink many of her established traditions. We should
not think that we are the only ones who have lived in dramatic times for such
a major reassessment happened at the time of the Reformation and in order to
chart our way forward today it may be helpful to distill some of the quintessentially
Anglican principles that guided our Church in the past and may yet prove to
be of help in our present circumstances. Therefore, as in the past we are now
being asked to consider a major, but entirely novel, interpretation of Scripture
that seeks further to underpin female presbyteral ordination and at the same
time make the case for female episcopal consecration, we would be wise to consider
what Reformed Evangelicals have said in the past. And as we do so we will notice
that the charge of novelty and innovation was a charge made by the Catholic
party at the height of the Reformation.
The Total Novelty of Female Episcopal Consecration Should Make Us Cautious
Charge of Novelty by the Roman Catholics
The charge of novelty was made by Rome against the Church of England during
the late sixteenth century. It was said that evangelical religion was "new"
and "of recent birth". But this charge of novelty was rejected by
the Reformers. They were able to demonstrate that what they were teaching was
simply what Scripture taught and was what had been understood in the Church
from the very beginning. Thus Hooker could write,
"the ceremonies which we have taken from such as were before us, are not things that belong to this or that sect, but they are the ancient rites and customs of the Church of Christ; whereof our selves being a part, we have the self same interest in them, which our fathers before us had, from the same are descended unto us".1
Great care therefore was taken by
the Reformers and by Hooker to ensure that they could claim a continuity with
the Apostolic Church. But such is the novelty of female bishops that it could
never be argued that they have descended from our fathers to us and far from
representing continuity represent a break and a departure from the Church of
the past.
Charge of Novelty against
the Radical Puritans
Such, however, was the distaste for novelty that the English Church also refused
to adopt a consistorial form of Church government even though the radical puritans
were claiming that this was simply the plain reading of Scripture. Although
they constructed elaborate structures of exegesis, appealing to texts throughout
Scripture, Hooker was unpersuaded. And he was unconvinced because he suspected
that Scripture was being read in isolation and apart from the Catholic and Primitive
Church. In other words they were not submitting themselves to the interpretative
community of the faithful and were reading Scripture in entirely new ways and
coming up with a form of Church government unheard of in the Church before.
This is not to say that they were wrong as in some instances (such as Calvin's
Geneva) the presbyteral form of Church government could be seen to be legitimate.
But to insist that this had to be accepted by all demonstrated a dangerous attempt
to elevate matters of secondary importance into matters of faith. And they could
only do this because they were not being guided by the interpretative community
of the whole Church both past and present. So Hooker wrote,
"when they and their Bibles were alone together whatever strange phanstastical opinion entered into their heads their use was to think that the Holy Spirit taught it them"2
and
"We should not lightly esteem what has been allowed as fit in the judgment of antiquity and by the long continued practice of the whole Church, from which unnecessarily to swerve experience has never found safe".3
Likewise those who are contending
for female presbyteral ordination and consecration are reading their Bibles
in entirely new and innovative ways and claiming that it is the Holy Spirit
who is leading them and only them in new interpretative paths. This is an astonishingly
arrogant claim.
The Novelty of Female Episcopal Consecration Lacks Consensus
In the Present
This has already been acknowledged by the Eames Commission as it contemplated
female presbyteral ordination. Due to persistent resistance from pockets of
faithful Anglicans the disruption in communion has been acknowledged not only
in the provisions extended to parishes (and other bodies) enabling them to pass
varying Resolutions that distance themselves from this innovation but also by
the recognition of the existence of two integrities and by the creation of the
Doctrine of Reception. As it has not yet been proved that female presbyteral
ordination has been fully accepted not only in the Church of England but across
the whole Communion it would be rash to proceed with female Episcopal consecration
which could only have the effect of creating even greater tension.
Across the Ages
Moreover, not only has female episcopal consecration not achieved consensus
in the present it is unable to achieve this consensus with the Church of the
past. This is an obvious but significant point. True Catholicity can be recognized
by the presence of a doctrine, not in any one particular age or in any one particular
regional or national Church but across the ages. Otherwise it is very easy to
absolutise permanently the partial and imperfect insights of any Church or age.
However, in defending an all male Episcopate and priesthood the orthodox can
call not only call upon the witness of the whole Church but also the witness
of the Apostolic age. In so doing we are not giving people to understand that
Truth is simply that which men agree upon in any particular age and is consequently
relative.
The Novelty of Female Episcopal Divorces Scripture from the Church
In order to advance their drive to abolish Episcopacy in the English Church
the radical Puritans had to come to a judgment with regard to the Church of
the past. Clearly, as was acknowledged on all sides Episcopacy was the form
of Church government that the Church of England had received and was indeed
the form of Church government that had been planted wherever Christianity took
root. Therefore in order to abolish such order the Puritans were forced to argue
that such was the corruption and depravity of the Medieval church that any vestiges
of Catholicism that were left had to be excised. In the minds of the Magisterial
Reformers such a course of action could only be disastrous. Hooker realized
that far from rebuilding the Apostolic Church the radical Puritans were engaged
in building something radically new. And in order to do so they were compelled
to claim the unique leading of the Holy Spirit and to snatch Scripture out of
the hands of the past. So Hooker writes
"[if] the Church did give any man license to follow what himself imagines God's Spirit does reveal unto him...what other effect could hereupon ensue but the utter confusion of his Church, under the pretense of being taught, led and guided by his Spirit.."4
In a similar way advocates of female
presbyteral ordination disparage the Church of the past as irredeemably sexist
and patriarchal thus leaving them free to construct unfamiliar and unprecedented
exegetical constructs. In so doing the Church casts anchor and removes all constraint
upon cantankerous, eccentric and what Hooker would call "singular"
exegesis.5
Thus what we are witnessing is not a calm development of deepening insight.
Rather it is nothing else but a revolution and an attempt to return the Church
to "ground zero" in order to construct an entirely new Church.
The Novelty of Female Episcopal Consecration Breeds Further Disruption and Disorder
At a time when wisdom demands caution and at a time when consensus has not been
reached and on an issue as divisive and schismatical as this one it has to be
said that should the Church of England proceed with proposals to consecrate
female presbyters as bishops there will inevitably be further disruption and
disorder. Orders are given to ensure the unity and maintain the peace of the
Church and are a principal instrument given by God for the maintenance of true
communion. Should female bishops be created they will disrupt the peace of the
Church as significant sections of the Church of England will find themselves
disenfranchised. This is inevitably the case as orders across the Church have
to be received by all if the Church is not to fall into ruin and devastation.
What therefore has started out as a modest proposal quickly becomes a matter
of first order importance. In such a situation justice demands that proper provision
be made for them or desperation will dictate that imprudent measures are taken.
5 Scripture, Reason and Consequence - David Banting
For the reasons I and my colleagues have sought to advance, we believe this Church would be wrong to make this innovation. With Article XXI in mind, we know that Councils can and do “err…in that all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God”. With Article XX in mind, we know that the Church has no right to coerce people against Scripture and that it must not set Scripture against Scripture.
Consequences of Innovation
However, if the church does proceed to the further innovation of women Bishops, reason suggests a number of inevitable consequences which we believe it our responsibility to spell out.
Negatively
Negatively, women Bishops will be a focus of disunity – a Bishop can only
be a focus of unity if the unity is grounded in the gospel. There is already
dismay among ordinands, some of whom are already withdrawing from training for
Anglican ministry, and among those who labour in evangelism among men. There
will be extensive disruption – early surveys suggest that up to 90% of
mainstream evangelicals (Peter Brierley’s demarcation) would have difficulties
with an oath of allegiance to a female Bishop, while others would find their
beliefs coerced and their ministry marginalized, for no movement of their own.
Disobedience would be inevitable if secure provision of alternative oversight
continues to be denied. In a word, dis-order – we say again, this is a
serious issue of order and authority.
Minimally
At the very least, if women Bishops were permitted, we would ask for the Act
of Synod to be retained and strengthened. We believe Parliament would require
it too. However, the new PEVs would institutionalise division within the House
of Bishops. A further issue with any ‘Act of Synod’ is that, if it
is retained, it is thought by some to be discriminatory and offensive, while,
if it is not abolished, it leads to coercion and exclusion. Equally or alternatively,
we would ask for each diocese to be given at least one orthodox and traditional
bishop to oversee our constituency. However, the suffragan would have to provide
full authority (i.e. alternative oversight), else the line “where I am,
the Diocesan is” would lead to the original problem. Again, we suspect
that for many the idea of a Third Province would be somehow necessary, even
though at present most of the thinking and expectation has been rather too Catholic
and has not yet looked at any reform of episcopacy. At any rate, we imagine
that the cost to the existing Provinces would be high in number and finance.
Each of these three minimal requirements or requests are made, knowing full
well each also carries real difficulties.
In conclusion, for the sake of authority and order within the church and of
mission and evangelism outside the church, we ask this Commission not to encourage
further dis-order in the Church of England, but rather to help every layer of
the Church to provide and pioneer Biblical women’s ministry that is both
radical and complementary.
6 Summary
We have demonstrated that the proposal for female episcopacy should be rejected for far-reaching exegetical, theological, historical and ministerial reasons.
We recognise that others will be persuaded by the proposal exactly because they hold profoundly different views on just these issues.
We therefore require that, if the proposal be accepted, we should not be compelled to subscribe to an episcopacy that violates our consciences before our God.
David Banting, Chairman of Reform and on behalf of the whole
Council. February 12, 2003
Footnotes
1) Richard Hooker Lawes of
Ecclesiastical Polity 4.9.1
2) Richard Hooker, op. cit. Preface 8.7.1
3) Richard Hooker, op. cit. 5.7.1
4) Richard Hooker, op. cit. 5.10.1
5) Richard Hooker op.cit. 5.10.1
Appendix: The Previous Written Submission to the Rochester Commission on behalf of the Council of Reform
The Question of Women
in the Episcopate
All Christians acknowledge that the Lord Jesus Christ is head of the Church.
It is his Church and, as the Chief Shepherd, he leads and rules his people by
his word – the vision in Revelation 1:16, Psalm 2:9/Romans 2:27 and 19:15
extends his authority to all the nations. That word, uniquely revealed to prophets
and apostles, we have now as ‘God’s Word written’ (to quote our
Articles). It is the supreme authority for the Church. Members of Reform, therefore,
believe themselves to be loyal Anglicans in acknowledging the authority and
sufficiency of Scripture and in seeking to think and work under that aegis.
Relevant Scriptures (i.e. 1 Timothy 2 & 3, 1 Corinthians 11 & 14) appear
to draw a clear parallel between the man as head in the human family and a man
as presiding over the family of the Church. It is, of course, essential that
such headship is exercised both under the headship of Christ and in the Spirit
of Christ, i.e. sacrificial love and service (as expounded for marriage in Ephesians
5: 21-33). But we believe it to be a real and appropriate headship and its weakening
or absence leads to a serious diminishing of marriage and family on the one
hand and of the church’s life and strength on the other. This structure
of the family and the congregation, which is endorsed by the Pauline writings
as a creation ordinance of permanent significance, is the reason why members
of Reform have always been unable to give their conscientious assent to the
ordination of women as presbyters. Whatever may be the case elsewhere, in the
Church of England the congregation (not the diocese) is the essential unit of
church life. Article 19 states: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation
of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments
be duly ministered …”. The presbyter or ‘senior man’ has
a headship in the congregation that the New Testament does not expect for women.
It is unfashionable to say this, but we cannot defer to fashion in preference
to the Word of God. There may be greater evils in the modern life of Anglicanism,
and we believe that there are, but this too is a piece of disobedience that
cannot be overlooked. Members of Reform wish to make it clear that they value
and endorse the unique ministry of women in the congregation. Over 60 incumbents
who are members of Reform employ women in spiritual ministry in their congregations.
Difficulties with the Female Presbyterate
We are not, therefore, able to approach the question of the consecration of
women to the episcopate on the basis of the affirmative vote which, after several
negative votes, the General Synod gave to the ordination of women as presbyters
nine years ago. We do not believe that doctrinal questions can be decided by
majority voting, and we continue to be convinced that this affirmative vote
was a mistaken decision, in which the General Synod departed from the Church
of England’s commitment to the authority of Scripture (Articles 6 and 20),
and which the Church will sooner or later have to reverse, as has happened in
some other Churches elsewhere (notable the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the
Presbyterian Church of Australia).
We are encouraged in this conviction by various other considerations:
( 1 ) The extent to which the synodical debate on the ordination of women to the priesthood was dominated by untheological arguments, such as simply human rights or secular public opinion.
( 2 ) The theory of ‘reception’, propounded by the Eames Commission and endorsed by the 1998 Lambeth Conference, according to which any decisions taken in favour of the ordination of women are merely provisional until agreement is reached either for them or against them.
( 3 ) The thesis of the House of Bishops’ Second Report on the Ordination of Women to the Priesthood (1988), that the ordination of women as presbyters and their consecration as bishops were in principle the same thing, but that their consecration as bishops was undesirable.
( 4 ) The deep divisions caused in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion by the decision to ordain women as presbyters, and the damage it has done to ecumenical relations.
( 5 ) The difficulty that bishops often have in placing women clergy, and the deterrent effect that the progressive feminising of the Church tends to have upon male ordinands.
The Episcopate and its
Reform
Turning, now, more directly to the subject of the episcopate, we agree with
the report of the House of Bishops that the ordination of women as presbyters
and their consecration as bishops are in principle the same thing. We cannot
accept the thesis of Bishop Kirk and others that the apostles themselves instituted
the episcopate and the presbyterate as two distinct offices. In the New Testament
(especially in Acts 20:17, 28 and Titus 1:5, 7) the titles ‘presbyter’
and ‘bishop’ are given to the same people, and the separation of roles
came somewhat later. When the episcopate first emerged as a separate office,
from the late first century onwards, the bishop could be realistically thought
of as having an enhanced responsibility for the presbyteral tasks of ministering
the Word and Sacraments and exercising pastoral care, besides performing what
were now the exclusively Episcopal tasks of ordaining and (in the Western Church)
confirming. This is still the case in some countries today, though hardly in
England. Here, dioceses are so unusually large that bishops have to spend much
of their time on administration, to the detriment of more important teaching
and pastoral activities, and their laity scarcely get to know them. We have
become so used to living with bishops at long distance that it is thought of
as normal, but in our view it is desirable for something much more like the
primitive situation to be restored in England too.
Difficulties with a Female
Episcopate
The Same Objections Magnified
But any approximation to the primitive situation would be grossly distorted
if women were consecrated to the episcopate. The early Church did not even have
women presbyters, and every objection to the ordination of women as presbyters
is magnified when applied to the consecration of women as bishops. The Presbyterian
theologian J.J. von Allmen argues in 1972 (‘Women and the Threefold Ministry’,
in Bruce and Duffield eds., Why Not?) that the office to which headship really
and unmistakably applies is that of the bishop. The former Bishop of Chester
persuaded some Evangelicals in the General Synod that they could conscientiously
vote for the ordination of women as presbyters because the real sticking-point
ought to be their consecration as bishops. And it is a historical fact that
the qualifications demanded for the episcopate have sometimes been not just
greater in degree but different in kind from those demanded for the presbyterate:
in the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day, only single men can become bishops,
though married men can become priests. We do not press these considerations,
because we believe that the offices of presbyter and bishop are in principle
one and the same. But it is clear that the objections that prevent us from recognising
women presbyters would even more emphatically prevent us from recognising women
bishops. It would be a still more flagrant repudiation of the teaching of the
apostle on male headship. It would be a still more arrogant assertion of the
‘right’ of women to be ordained (nobody has such a right), claiming
now a right for them to be consecrated bishop. It would violate the idea of
‘reception’, compounding the problem by taking a further step before
the issue of women presbyters has itself been settled. And it would deepen the
divisions and alienations that already exist, by pouring salt into the wounds.
The episcopate, instead of being a focus of unity, would become a focus of division.
Whether the Church of England and the Anglican Communion could long survive
such a development is a very open question. The increasingly rapid decay and
disintegration of the Anglican Churches in the USA and Canada, which pioneered
these ecclesiastical adventures, suggest that the answer is No.
Additional Objections
Besides magnifying the existing objections to a female presbyterate, the consecration
of women bishops would also be faced with objections peculiar to itself. This
arises not out of any essential difference between the two offices, but out
of the particular duties that bishops alone perform. Bishops preside over dioceses,
which contain many parishes; they confirm the laity in those parishes; they
ordain, institute and license clergy for those parishes, and receive from the
clergy an oath of canonical obedience. Anglo-Catholic clergy have already broken
communion with bishops who ordain women presbyters, on the grounds that they
have performed heretical acts. Evangelical clergy have on the whole not done
this, contenting themselves with being out of communion with the women presbyters
concerned. But the advent of women bishops would change matters. We believe
that many, if not all, members of Reform would be unable conscientiously to
accept confirmation, ordination, institution or licensing from a woman bishop,
or to make an oath of canonical obedience to her, since this would be to recognise
the headship which she was improperly exercising; also that they would be unable
to regard as truly ordained the clergy, male as well as female, whom a woman
bishop had ordained. The least that an Evangelical would require, if living
and working in a diocese where the bishop was a woman, would be the ministrations
of a PEV.
Contingency Planning
Of course, there would not at first be a woman bishop presiding or assisting
in every diocese, still less a woman archbishop at Canterbury or York. This
would simply be the goal of their ambition. Nevertheless, when women bishops
were approved, the writing would be on the wall. In those circumstances, Reform
would probably have to add its voice to those asking Parliament and the Monarch
not to confirm the legislation until it had been agreed to give the dissentients
a separate province, and when this had been conceded the members of Reform and
their PEVs would probably join it as a body. We venture to add, that the loss
to the other two provinces, both numerically and financially, would not be slight.
David Banting
Chairman
30th October 2001