Reform, as a grass roots movement, envisages action coming from members who have thought, studied, discussed and agreed. Discussion papers such as this one are written by individual members for the council of Reform and the wider church. The author alone is responsible for the paper. This paper may be copied freely.
Why are there Objections to Women being Bishops in the Church of England?
Mark Burkill
In its introductory brochure Reform states that it ‘affirms the unique value of women’s ministry. While we believe in the divine order of male headship, 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 funding and training available’. There are many churches associated with Reform in which paid women’s ministry in the fields of evangelism, Bible teaching and pastoral care can be seen in practice.
More specifically, the Reform covenant says ‘Our understanding of God’s way of life for his people includes the unique value of women’s ministry in the local congregation but also the divine order of male headship, which makes the headship of women as priests in charge, incumbents, dignitaries and bishops inappropriate’.
There are many in the Church of England who believe this expresses what the Bible as a whole teaches. They maintain that men and women are equal in status before God and yet have complementary roles. They are also convinced that to be detached from the Bible and the Apostles is to depart from real Christianity. However they are aware that sincere Christians may disagree with them and would wish to ask a number of questions. This leaflet is an attempt to answer the most common questions, and to indicate the way forward for the Church of England.
Surely the Bible’s teaching was conditioned by the times in which the biblical writers lived?
The biblical writers certainly lived within the culture of their times, yet 2 Peter 1:21 insists they ‘spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit’. In this matter there are plain instances when writers like the apostle Paul base their doctrine on principles that stand outside of the culture in which they write. When he says that ‘the head of the woman is man’ (1 Cor 11:3) his teaching is based on the nature of God himself. When he says ‘For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church’ (Eph 5:23) he is presupposing a lasting order in the relationship between husband and wife. When he says ‘I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man’ (1 Tim 2:12) he founds his argument on the order of creation in Genesis 2.
Surely the creation of Eve from Adam’s side in Genesis 2 implies equality rather than superiority?
The question does not capture the spirit and intent of Genesis 2 itself and therefore cannot be reconciled with the way in which this chapter is referred to by the apostle Paul. The key phrase is found in Gen 2:18 which speaks of God’s purpose to make a ‘helper suitable for him’ (Adam). This shows that in creating Eve the intention is that she join with Adam in his task of ruling creation under God. However the expression ‘suitable for him’ tells us that this is to be done through complementarity rather than identity or inter-changeability. Thus Genesis 2 teaches that there is equality of nature along with complementarity of roles for men and women. The priority of Adam’s creation expressed in Genesis 2 is certainly not designed to express superiority, but it does assert the need for proper order and differentiation within male/female responsibilities.
Surely the vision of the New Testament is that one day women should take on all the roles of men?
Although the consistent teaching and practice for centuries among God’s people has been that of male/female complementarity, appeal is often made to Galatians 3:28 (‘there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’). It is argued that in the early church the incorporation of the Gentiles in Acts 15 sets Christians off on a trajectory which first led to the abolition of slavery and should now lead to the complete interchangeability of male and female roles. However Gal 3:28 is spoken in reference to the issue of how one becomes and remains a Christian and will receive the blessing of God’s inheritance. Paul is not arguing that the removal of these human categories is essential for this, indeed he continued to recognise sex/gender distinctions because he understood sexual difference to be rooted in creation.
Surely there is no such word as ‘headship’ in the Bible?
True, but the word ‘head’ certainly is. Headship is a convenient shorthand for a biblical principle about order and leadership. That principle can be found in the way 1 Peter 5:1-4 speaks of ‘shepherds’ and the ‘Chief Shepherd’. Various words in the Bible are used to express aspects of this headship – authority, submission and so on. We must be careful to understand these words in their original contexts since they can have misleading baggage (like the word ‘church’). Thus we find that biblical leadership is exercised with a servant spirit, through the teaching of God’s word, and is based on an order within the Trinity of God himself. Note that headship should not be directly equated with ordination since the biblical principle is concerned with the leadership of congregations.
Surely male headship leads to the abuse of women in the name of religion?
Those who misuse their human authority will be held to account by God who is Lord over all. The Bible locates the origin of such evils in the Fall of Genesis 3. However an abuse of authority does not mean we should do away with authority altogether. In fact all human beings have to submit to some authority. Even rulers need to know that they are subject to the King of Kings. The wonderful reality of the Christian good news is that it is directed to changing the heart and then seeks godly behaviour which comes from the heart. It does not need religious rules about veils and other matters to translate principles like male headship into behaviour which pleases God. The abuse of women by men must be confronted with the example of Christ’s self-giving leadership (Eph 5:25).
Surely women now occupy leading roles in other areas of our society?
The Bible insists that the roles and ministries of men and women alike are crucial to the well being of human society, but so is the ordering of those roles. In addressing the issue of order the Bible has a particular focus on leadership in human families and in congregations of God’s people (called the ‘household of God’ in 1 Tim 3:15). The Scriptures teach that this leadership should be male. This focus could be because such relationships are so basic to human society and therefore key to its wider well being.
Surely some women feel called to leadership roles within the church?
Any calling or leading of the Holy Spirit has to be tested by the Spirit-breathed Word of God. The Holy Spirit cannot lead anyone in a way that contradicts the teaching of the Scriptures. It is possible to confuse a call to ministry with a call to lead congregations. The church should certainly encourage paid ministry for women that fits within the vision stated above. The numerous references to women and their work for the Lord within the New Testament show that such ministries must be encouraged. In fact it is the complementarian, biblical vision expressed in the Reform covenant which provides the breadth of ministry necessary for the mission of the Church today.
How can the Church of England be kept together?
In the current circumstances, where there are deeply held yet differing convictions about women’s ministry in the church, we must be very careful to do all we can to keep God’s people together. The apostle John warns us ‘If anyone says, “I love God”, yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen’ (1 John 4:19). It is therefore important that those who are determined to have women bishops make appropriate provision for those who disagree with them.
How is unity to be maintained in such circumstances?
It must be recognised that Christian unity is always a unity in the truth. The 1662 Book of Common Prayer instructs us to pray that all ‘they who do confess thy holy name may agree in the truth of thy holy word, and live in unity, and godly love’ (Prayer for the Church militant). Unity is not secured simply by fellowship with a particular bishop. The bishop secures unity by faithfully teaching the Bible.
Is it not unanglican to make special arrangements for dissidents?
It is wrong to make the way we arrange the details of our church life determinative of our Anglican status. The basis of the Church of England is described by Canon A5: ‘The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal’. There is no reason to think that those who refuse to accept the ministry of a woman bishop are any less Anglican. Indeed they were explicitly referred to as ‘loyal Anglicans’ in a motion passed by General Synod on July 10th 2006. And there is no reason to think that making special arrangements for them is unAnglican either.
Why can’t dissidents keep their consciences and Biblical convictions to themselves?
The problem is that consciences cannot be kept private, they have practical consequences. Because this is a matter of conscience, Christians who cannot accept women bishops ought at least to be treated as brothers and sisters whose faith is ‘weak’ as in Romans 14-15. In disputable matters Paul warns about the danger of destroying a believer for whom Christ died (Rom 14:15). It is a matter of fairness and Christian liberty.
What sort of provision do dissidents need?
They need provision which meets their conscientious objections and principles. It cannot be imposed by those who disagree with them but must be done through proper consultation with those for whom the provision is intended. This was done in the earlier case of PEVs (flying bishops).
How can such special provision be arranged within the Church of England?
Where there is a will, there is a way. Various thought out schemes have been suggested which make use of the archbishops’ metropolitical authority and historical precedents such as ‘peculiars’.
Can such special provision be afforded by the Church of England?
If the concerns of those who need this provision are genuinely heeded then the costs can be met. Many of the largest congregations and keenest givers in the Church of England could wish to make use of them.
Bibliography
(a) Theology
God’s Design for Women – S James (Evangelical Press)
Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth – W Grudem (Apollos)
Ordination for whom? – P Gardner (Orthos 3) (Fellowship of Word & Spirit)
Women Bishops? Church Society leaflet
Equality not Symmetry - M Ovey (Cambridge Papers Vol 1 no2)
Ministry of Women – M Burkill, D Peterson, S Vibert (Latimer Trust comment 66)
(b) Provision
A Way Forward – W Benn, G Bray, R Beckwith, M Ovey (Orthos 22) (Fellowship of Word & Spirit)
Consecrated Women – J Baker (ed) (Canterbury Press)
(c) Websites
Cambridge Papers http://www.jubilee-centre.org/resources.php?catID=1
Church Society http://www.churchsociety.org/
Fellowship of Word & Spirit http://www.fows.org/
Latimer Trust http://www.latimertrust.org/
Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood http://cbmw.org/index.php