What were they debating? Whether or not to have women as bishops.
We Episcopalians-- that is, those of us in the United States who are part of the wider Anglican Communion, of which The Church of England is also a part-- have allowed women to be ordained as both priests and bishops since 1976. That's two years prior to my birth.
If that sounds fairly recent, consider the fact that the ordination of women has only been authorized since 1992 in the Church of England. In 1992, I was a freshman in high school.
Suffice it to say that debate in the C of E has been raging pretty much since then on the inclusion of women in the episcopate (a fancy word that means the body of bishops in the church).
I understand well that this is a touchy subject. For one thing, much-- oh, so very much-- has been made of the implications for the church based on what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:3--
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ."
I am by no means qualified to strap on a bow and arrow and shoot that full of exegesis, but if we interpret it to mean that woman is SUBORDINATE to man, doesn't it then follow that Christ has to be SUBORDINATE to God? Weren't there entire councils in the ancient Church dedicated to the debate and ultimate rejection of that every notion? They're equal in their divinity. Men and women? Also equal. "Head" here just means source, according to my big ol' OAB.
And does Paul not go on to say, in 11:11-12 (after a bunch of stuff pertaining to hairstyles, no less-- go look it up):
"Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes from woman; but all things come from God." Followed, yet again, by more stuff about hair. I don't know about you, but that sounds like more votes in favor of our inherent equality.
I'm not going to unfold and debate every other argument against the whateverness of women here. Historically we've been kept out of every role of leadership known to humanity, and have done nothing but win and excel in those same roles of leadership. Some we're still working on; clearly, for ordained women in the Church of England, this is one of them.
I am sad and disappointed, but I am not without hope. Listen, hypothetical naysayer-- If you really and truly believe that the ordination of women bishops is wrong, then how does it sit with you that women can vote, work, and drive? That we can be elected to political office? If you're really and truly against the ordination of women to the episcopate, then how do you view the very timeline of civilization-- which has been and continues to be a record of how women have doggedly and tirelessly dis-proven every claim to our inequality?
Last but not least, if we're looking for some clues about how the modern church should look, why don't we go back and check out the demographics of the ancient church? Bust out Romans 16 for a change. Consider Phoebe, and Priscilla, and Mary, and Junia.
Consider how the modern church already looks for those of us on the this side of the pond. Consider Laura, Diane, Mariann, Jane, Carol, Mary G., Susan, Mary G-R., Barbara, Gayle, Dena, Carolyn, MaryAdelia, Chilton, Bavi, Catharine, Geralyn, and Katharine, all Bishops in good standing in the Episcopal Church in America and sisters in both Christ and the Anglican Communion of those who voted against today's legislation. (Many thanks to Episcopal Cafe for lifting each of them up in thanksgiving this afternoon.)
I am sad about today's vote, but ladies, we got this. We are meant to feed Christ's people as his Bishops (see p. 521 in the BCP) as much as we are meant to feed them as His priests and deacons. For the Church of England, it's just going to take some more time.
4 comments:
Are you talking about Katherine Ragsdale? The same woman who believes that "abortion is a blessing"? Sorry, but I wouldn't be very proud to claim her -- nor would I deign to recognize the authority of anyone who would champion the killing of innocent human beings (I think God would have a problem with that, too...)
I really struggled with this issue before converting to the Catholic Church, as I grew up in a liberal Protestant denomination that accepted women as priests and bishops, but I eventually concluded that the Church was right -- the Church does not have the ability or the authority to ordain women. There's a longer explanation here. That doesn't mean that women are less equal or somehow deficient, merely that God has given us different responsibilities in the Church. Men can be ordained, and women bring forth new life. Of the two, I feel honored to be entrusted with bearing new life.
So, just some different perspective from someone who was once on the other side of the fence.
I'm not sure where I sit on this particular fence. Raised in a very conservative Presbyterian home where the ordination of women was consider patently unbiblical, I now attend a Lutheran church with a female interim pastor. I'm at sea and struggling to tackle this difficult issue. My heart and my head are too full and tangled up to say anything useful about how we interpret Scriptures on this issue. (Deborah was a judge in the OT, but women can't speak in church in the NT? I don't understand.) But I'm taking comfort in Philippians where it says that Christ did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing and humbled himself even to death on a cross "therefore God exalted him to the highest place." I know that this passage has been abused to silence people (me included) who pointed out injustices and so leave injustice in place. But, if Christ could be humble for the glory set before him, we can endure this test with humility. This doesn't mean I believe women must not be ordained or must be ordained, just that we have one clear step to take. We can be humble and remember that Christ's humility became a testimony to his worthiness to be exalted.
One thing I will say for certain though - telling women that they have wombs and that is their essential identity and calling before Christ is not just too narrow a view of humanity, but too cruel (however kindly meant) when directed at women who can't or don't have children. I am no less a woman and a person because I'm not a biological mother and the history of the Catholic saints attests to that fact.
Hey there, JoAnna! No, the Katharine I'm talking about is Katharine Jefferts-Schori, who is the Presiding Bishop (head bishop) of the Episcopal Church. As for Katharine Ragsdale, that comment is a provocative one, especially when take out of context. I would not call abortion a blessing in any sense, but the unwanted pregnancy resulting from the act of violence she referenced in that speech crystallizes one of the most fraught scenarios extant in a world that sanctions the validity of the mother's emotional well-being. My own thoughts on abortion are both complex and undecided, so I'll leave those off the table.
I have heard and understand the arguments against ordaining women at all; I was initially confirmed in a conservative Anglican church that broke away from the Episcopal church at large over just this issue. I respectfully disagree with the notion that innate differences in gender make women sacramentally inequal to men.
I'm really glad you were moved to comment and I'm glad you're reading!
Hi, Sarah!! First of all, I have been dying to hear a little bit about how your faith journey has gone since you moved to your current state. It's been evident to me that things have shifted at least slightly, and that's not a judgement call on your past or present leanings in any way-- just an observation. I love how you return to Christ's humility as a model in your indecision; that's the model for how I try to approach those thorny theological issues on which I just can't make up my mind, too. Love you and miss you!!
Post a Comment