Women in Authority -- Church of England statement?

Patrick Bateman said:

I was wondering if anyone knew of a statement of 'justification' that the Church felt justified in appointing women to exercise authority in the church or any articles or videos where people within the Church speak on the matter.

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Do you have a specific definition of women in authority?

Patrick Bateman said:

Hi,

I just e-mailed the archives/record centre with the names of some reports produced by the church on the subject, hopefully sheds some light on it

Curious what their Scriptural basis is for allowing women Vicars, Bishops etc.

Click to expand...

I've always liked this discussion of Paul on this matter by Professor Bishop N. T Wright:

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

Jesus may have been a man, but it was more important that He was human...part of Creation, than being male. The male character has value too, but not in the way people think.

Because of Genesis 1, we know that both men and women are in the likeness of God equally. Furthermore, both men and women have equality as coheirs in and with Christ. Why? Because God deigned that women can inherit like men. Only men could truly be full inheritors under the Law. The Law is no more, and, as God made clear to St. Peter in the vision of supposedly unclear food, those laws were not meant to be used in the way they were. No.

Under the Law, only men could be circumcised. In Holy Baptism, which circumcision foreshadowed, women too are included. As such, they are made full heirs alongside men. We see this over and again in Holy Scripture. Finally, we see ordained women in Holy Scripture and in the canons and Holy Tradition of the Holy Church. Canon 15 of Chalcedon, alongside the fact that the Oriental Orthodox STILL ORDAIN WOMEN dispels the silly notion of a doctrinal objection to their ordination.

There is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders, not three. It is the same sacrament which ordain priests and bishops as it does deacons. If a person can be ordained at all, they can doctrinal be ordained to any order.

The Creed, Holy Baptism, Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, with a dose of Holy Reason, all make a very strong case for the ordination of women.

All of the replies so far have been fruitful, I think. I especially like NT Wright's comments on women's ordination, however I'm not sure they actually answer the original question, which is essentially what was the justification presented by the Church (specifically the CoE) for women's ordination and the election of women as bishops.

Whenever I've discussed this, I've tended to use NT Wright's article, because I've never found a particularly satisfying argument coming from synods that have approved it. What did TEC/ACC say in the mid-70s? What was the argument presented in the 90s in the CoE? What argument carried the day with respect to Bishops over the past year? I doubt it was NT Wright's argument, and at least in Canada, I know a strong argument was about equality.

CanadianAnglican said:

All of the replies so far have been fruitful, I think. I especially like NT Wright's comments on women's ordination, however I'm not sure they actually answer the original question, which is essentially what was the justification presented by the Church (specifically the CoE) for women's ordination and the election of women as bishops.

Whenever I've discussed this, I've tended to use NT Wright's article, because I've never found a particularly satisfying argument coming from synods that have approved it. What did TEC/ACC say in the mid-70s? What was the argument presented in the 90s in the CoE? What argument carried the day with respect to Bishops over the past year? I doubt it was NT Wright's argument, and at least in Canada, I know a strong argument was about equality.

Click to expand...

Whereas I completely agree that all decisions must have a theological justification, sometimes, though it is without question far less appealing, a decision like this may be based on a bad premise but the conclusion may still be true. After all, a false premise may still have a truth conclusion.

In all such cases, there had better be a quick theological justification to follow it up. Whims are a house of cards.

When women were accepted to the presbytery, it was only a matter of time before they were accepted as bishops (10 years for the C of E).

It's the same ordination.

The reason the women bishop measure had a rough ride through general synod was to ensure that those anti women parishes had adequate oversight. The "flying bishop" fudge for presbyters did not work for bishops.

Whatever views might be held about the role of women, I don't think anyone can deny that women's ordination in the C of E has been overwhelmingly positive.

God has a track record of using the most unlikely people in his service. Let's not forget this.

PaladinValer said:

Whereas I completely agree that all decisions must have a theological justification, sometimes, though it is without question far less appealing, a decision like this may be based on a bad premise but the conclusion may still be true. After all, a false premise may still have a truth conclusion.

In all such cases, there had better be a quick theological justification to follow it up. Whims are a house of cards.

Click to expand...

Conversely when we fail to provide a theological justification (like the ACC) then we can just as easily obscure or ignore God's truth. Ask an Anglican in Canada why we ordain women and they're just as likely to tell you that it's because Canadians believe in equality of the sexes. Effectively they're saying that secular opinion governed church doctrine. That should be a frightening prospect for anyone, and it certainly is for me.

It's something that in Canada has become more and more common. Same-sex marriage is the controversy du jour here, and it's no longer at all surprising how many people feel the sacrament of Holy Matrimony should be changed to allow for same-sex couples on the basis of the government having legalized same-sex marriage ten years ago, and the fact that more than 50% of the people view it as acceptable when polled. Regardless of your stance on the matter, surely you could see how it would be concerning that those positions have zero merit in determining how the Church is called to respond to God in faithfulness to his commandments and will?

CanadianAnglican said:

Conversely when we fail to provide a theological justification (like the ACC) then we can just as easily obscure or ignore God's truth. Ask an Anglican in Canada why we ordain women and they're just as likely to tell you that it's because Canadians believe in equality of the sexes. Effectively they're saying that secular opinion governed church doctrine. That should be a frightening prospect for anyone, and it certainly is for me.

Click to expand...

That is not a secular opinion at all. It is Christianity itself which leads by example in demonstrating equality for male and female, slave and free, Jew and gentile.

Canada may well believe it too, but Christianity takes the lead on this one, not the state.

Patrick Bateman said:

That's just it -- I am trying to find the meat. I want the theological justification. I want their reasoning. I don't want generic, moralistic opinions by people going with the flow, I want to try and understand what information and discussions lead up to the decision.

Apparently difficult to find!

I put a request in for the reports with the Church of England Archives/Record Centre, so I will just have to see if they have a PDF scanning of those reports or not. If not I guess I'll go there and photocopy them if they're available to do so, which they should be.

Click to expand...

What is thought of the theological justification found in my reply since there was one offered?

I find the discussion interesting. I have no pony in this race, but I'd like to know why Jesus didn't "ordain" any women? Surely Jesus wasn't held captive by social prejudices and the pressures to make chauvinists happy? Surely if the Lord felt women fully called and allowed to be priests, He'd have done so, right?

The Fathers are illumined, so why would the Holy Spirit withhold women's ordination from them and permit them to be encircled my misogyny?

I often hear the "branch" theory. If Anglicanism, along with Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism are three branches of Gods church, why is it only the Anglicans allowing this when the Orthodox and Catholics absolutely forbid it? The Orthodox were cozying up to Anglicans until WO. After that all bets were off. Is Anglicanism to be an example for these other two who just don't get it and are behind in the times or the reverse? Is the Orthodox and Catholic view worth considering as the other two branches?

When Paul was talking about how in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, Scythian, etc. was he talking about authority in the Church and Holy a Orders or was he speaking to the problem of some Jews seeing Gentiles as inferior, the need to show all races and groups could be BAPTIZED and valid members of the same church, etc.? Is the passage about God loving us all equally or God calling everyone to ministry? Can we all be equally loved and worth being saved yet not all called to the same authoritative offices?

Do the patristics matter in their condemnation of gnostic use of women priests?

Precedent, Scripture, Jesus's choices, the Fathers, 2,000 of consistency, the other two branches, all point against it. Only modern culture points in the other direction. I'd it social justice secularism influencing or the patristics and Scripture and precedent? Just wondering....

gurneyhalleck1 said:

I find the discussion interesting. I have no pony in this race, but I'd like to know why Jesus didn't "ordain" any women? Surely Jesus wasn't held captive by social prejudices and the pressures to make chauvinists happy? Surely if the Lord felt women fully called and allowed to be priests, He'd have done so, right?

The Fathers are illumined, so why would the Holy Spirit withhold women's ordination from them and permit them to be encircled my misogyny?

I often hear the "branch" theory. If Anglicanism, along with Holy Orthodoxy and Catholicism are three branches of Gods church, why is it only the Anglicans allowing this when the Orthodox and Catholics absolutely forbid it? The Orthodox were cozying up to Anglicans until WO. After that all bets were off. Is Anglicanism to be an example for these other two who just don't get it and are behind in the times or the reverse? Is the Orthodox and Catholic view worth considering as the other two branches?

When Paul was talking about how in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, Scythian, etc. was he talking about authority in the Church and Holy a Orders or was he speaking to the problem of some Jews seeing Gentiles as inferior, the need to show all races and groups could be BAPTIZED and valid members of the same church, etc.? Is the passage about God loving us all equally or God calling everyone to ministry? Can we all be equally loved and worth being saved yet not all called to the same authoritative offices?

Do the patristics matter in their condemnation of gnostic use of women priests?

Precedent, Scripture, Jesus's choices, the Fathers, 2,000 of consistency, the other two branches, all point against it. Only modern culture points in the other direction. I'd it social justice secularism influencing or the patristics and Scripture and precedent? Just wondering....

Click to expand...

You can write any number of impressive essays about ECF, but there is no denying that God has blessed the church richly via women's ministry. Think about that.

There have been many strong women throughout bible times, and without a modern concept of ordination, who's to say where women really fitted in? Paul wrote very much within his culture, and his letters addressed specific cultures of the recipient churches.

Our duty is to preach the gospel afresh in each generation.

My fellowship, with our first ever woman curate, equips us to be the hands and feet of Jesus in our local community enabling us to transform lives. I can't imagine any of the ECFs looking down on us and disapproving.

What evidence do you have that the ECF's approve? Id like to see that. Otherwise saying "I can't imagine" is an exercise of imagination and emotion which the ECF's loathed.

Secondly, how do you know a male curate wouldn't have been as effective and special to you?

Nobody ever said women couldnt bless the church in ministries. Women make awesome Sunday school teachers, choir singers, ministers at hospital and prison, care-givers, parents, assistants, catechism directors, you name it. And ultimately no one is as effective with counseling women out of abortions and being there for other women than a woman. THE biggest blessing they give all of us is LIFE, something men could never understand!

But they don't need to be priests to do any of the things I've mentioned.

Likewise, church attendance has PLUMMETED in the CofE and Anglicanism in general since WO.

And finally what the ECF's said about Church matters infinitely more than the words of moderns and humanists and those deeply influenced by secular tides. These men were profoundly illumined. When we depart from the deposit of faith and the EXF's, imagination, emotion, and the changing tides of the latest craze rule the day.

And the argument that something good can come from something wrong has never been a good argument. If a woman has an abortion, now she has more time to study in college and have "me" time, but does that make the abortion ok? Communism, inappropriate contentography, even murder has positives attached. Why with WO do we overlook the glaringly bad theology and precedent, the ECF's, Scripture, and the other two branches just because it might yield some fruit?

Regarding Paul, you seem to not see him as illumined but more a hostage of his times, shackled in prejudice to pander to his audience. What about Jesus? He didn't ordain women. Surely by your metric of yielding fruit, Jesus should've chosen St. Mary Magdalene or the Theotokos herself over a doubter like Thomas or a coward like Peter, right? Was Jesus too scared to address WO for fear of ticking someone off? This is the same Man who shouted things like "whited sepulchers, hypocrites!!, blind guides!!" and basically told the Pharisees and Sadduccees off at every turn, hanging out with Roman Centurions and lepers....

Liberasit said:

You can write any number of impressive essays about ECF, but there is no denying that God has blessed the church richly via women's ministry. Think about that.

There have been many strong women throughout bible times, and without a modern concept of ordination, who's to say where women really fitted in? Paul wrote very much within his culture, and his letters addressed specific cultures of the recipient churches.

Our duty is to preach the gospel afresh in each generation.

My fellowship, with our first ever woman curate, equips us to be the hands and feet of Jesus in our local community enabling us to transform lives. I can't imagine any of the ECFs looking down on us and disapproving.

Click to expand...

Catherineanne said:

That is not a secular opinion at all. It is Christianity itself which leads by example in demonstrating equality for male and female, slave and free, Jew and gentile.

Canada may well believe it too, but Christianity takes the lead on this one, not the state.

Click to expand...

Perhaps my point wasn't clear, but the argument was that secular Canadian society believed in gender equality, not that it was supported by Christ or by Scriptures, Church tradition, etc. The argument ignored any of the effective Christian arguments noted in the previously cited article by NT Wright.

As PaladinValer said, sometimes these arguments can still hold truth, but in effect we are then saying the ends (that it is a Christian position to arrive at) justify the means (using a secular, non-Christian argument). If these positions can be reached using Christian positions (and barring the catholicity issue, I believe they can be, again see Bishop Wright's article rooted in Scripture and tradition), then why are we not using the Christian arguments rather than the secular arguments? How long will it take before we're simply used to accepting the legitimacy of secular arguments informing Church doctrine?

Given the debates occurring in Canada right now, many Canadian Anglicans are perfectly comfortable basing their views on what the position of the Anglican Church of Canada should be 100% on secular arguments and values without any reference to God, the Bible, the Church, etc.

Patrick Bateman said:

There's a difference between inequality and contradicting gender roles within the church, though, and that's where I feel the issue lies.

Click to expand...

When 'gender roles' is code for inequality and discrimination then that is where the issue lies. Equality is at the heart of our faith, and that means functional as well as theoretical equality. Not just; 'Of course women are equal; they have a very special calling to serve tea', but; 'Women are equal'.

All are made in the image of God. All are called to follow Christ. There is only one baptism, one faith, one Lord. And there is only one humanity; male and female.

CanadianAnglican said:

Perhaps my point wasn't clear, but the argument was that secular Canadian society believed in gender equality, not that it was supported by Christ or by Scriptures, Church tradition, etc. The argument ignored any of the effective Christian arguments noted in the previously cited article by NT Wright.

As PaladinValer said, sometimes these arguments can still hold truth, but in effect we are then saying the ends (that it is a Christian position to arrive at) justify the means (using a secular, non-Christian argument). If these positions can be reached using Christian positions (and barring the catholicity issue, I believe they can be, again see Bishop Wright's article rooted in Scripture and tradition), then why are we not using the Christian arguments rather than the secular arguments? How long will it take before we're simply used to accepting the legitimacy of secular arguments informing Church doctrine?

Given the debates occurring in Canada right now, many Canadian Anglicans are perfectly comfortable basing their views on what the position of the Anglican Church of Canada should be 100% on secular arguments and values without any reference to God, the Bible, the Church, etc.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I was not clear. I do not see it as a secular argument. It is a Christian argument which the Christian world is not always very ready to accept, but it is there from the very beginning. Christ challenges us to lose our prejudices.

This particular prejudice has taken a lot of losing.