Dispatches: Women Bishops
First shown on Channel 4 in July 2005
Katie Streten traces the history, and outlines the arguments for and against the ordination of women as bishops in the Church of England and comes to her own conclusions
This month, from 8 to 12 July, the General Synod of the Church of England is meeting in York to discuss a number of key issues facing the church today. Included in this agenda, and overshadowing most other concerns, is the question of whether the Church of England should allow the ordination of women bishops. Cristina Odone, presenter of Channel 4's Dispatches: Women Bishops, is former editor of The Catholic Herald and a leading Catholic in Britain today. She believes passionately that allowing women to become bishops would be a mistake – in effect against God’s will.
Those outside the church may be confused that, after years of arguments, which finally concluded in 1992 that it was appropriate to ordain women as priests, the Church of England is now debating whether to allow them to take on the role of bishop. After all, once it is accepted that women can be priests, surely this enrols them by default in the three orders – priest, bishop and archbishop – just as it does for men. Not only that, women are already acting as bishops in the churches of America, New Zealand and Australia. However, the 1992 decision specifically states that it does not thereby permit the ordination of women as bishops.
To understand this distinction, it is useful to understand the history of women’s involvement in the church and to investigate the three different arguments that contribute to this discussion.
In the beginning
The involvement of women in the life of Christ and the ministry of the early church is charted by the stories of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and by the events that occurred afterwards in the development of the church. Women are an integral part of Jesus’s ministry: he meets with them alone and touches them when they are unclean, shattering contemporary taboos not just for his status as a rabbi but simply as a male in 1st century Jewish society. In addition, a woman is the first to discover that he has risen from the dead.
Later, as the church expands through the ministry of Paul, there are scriptural references to the support and, importantly, to the leadership that women offered to the fledgling faith. Lydia opens her house at Phillipi and converts her whole household, Phoebe is actually commended as a diakonos – what we now know as deacon – of the church at Cenchrae and as someone who gave Paul significant help and protection.
As the church developed and different offices were put in place, women were excluded from these orders but contributed in other ways, such as financial support, hospitality, prayer and involvement in worship. Later, they led single-sex religious communities where some of them wielded great power and wealth. Some were also consulted on theological matters. In the 12th century, for example, Hildegard of Bingen advised and was consulted by bishops and even by Pope Eugenius.
Victorian values
The beginning of the move toward women in the priesthood can be traced back to the Victorian era and, paradoxically, originated partly as a reaction to an extreme view of woman’s decreed place in society. The Victorian ideology of married domesticity and motherhood was so strong that it resulted in a feeling that women who remained unmarried were redundant – even to the extent of discussing whether they might be shipped to the colonies like surplus merchandise.
A revival of religious communities in the 1840s established places where women were not only secure and provided for, but also valued. In addition, these communities offered a structured framework for significant work within society and the church. The response to this from the Church of England was to create the order of deaconess, a role which sat alongside the lay ministries of women in other churches, such as the Methodist church, where gender has never been a barrier to any form of service.
Modern times
In the 20th century, as women’s role in society changed, so did their role within the Church of England. In the wake of women achieving the vote in 1918, the issue of female priests was raised in 1919 with a report on the work of deaconesses. It dismissed the question.
In 1935 the role of deaconess was recognised as being of the clergy as opposed to the laity, but again prohibited women from becoming deacons, priests, bishops or archbishops. Finally, in 1984, not only were women permitted to be deacons but legislation for the ordination of women began to be prepared. It took until 1992 for the Synod to vote that women could function as priests with the statement: 'The Synod’s decision expresses the mind of the majority of the Church of England insofar as this can be ascertained.' In 1994 women were finally ordained as priests.
However, an undefined period of 'reception' was instigated to enable the church at large to discern whether this really was God’s will and to enable Anglicans, in effect, to get used to the idea. This period of reception is an important element in the arguments over whether women can go further in the church.
The arguments for and against
There are three strands to the arguments about whether it is right to ordain women as bishops:
- the Catholic Anglican view against ordination
- the Conservative Evangelical viewpoint against ordination
- the viewpoint of those from all traditions who believe women should be ordained as bishops.
These arguments centre on both scriptural justifications for and against the move plus social arguments and issues of timing. Roughly they break down as follows:
Catholic Anglican
- The church should not respond to changes in society simply because they occur. There is no tradition for women being priests and therefore no historical precedent for this.
- There is no evidence in either Jesus’s ministry and teachings or those of Paul and the church fathers to indicate that they were interested in sexual equality in relation to the leadership of the church. Passages from the Bible such as this one from 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 3: 'I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God', are clear on the relationship of women to men in the church. Women leading men as either priest or bishop doesn’t accord with them.
- Christ was male and can't be represented by a female priest standing for him in a church service.
- Women bishops will cause disunity rather than unity since there are still those in the church who are opposed to their ordination and would not be able to submit to them. This argument is a powerful one in regard to our relations with Catholics and with Anglican churches in Africa and other parts of the world, who are very strongly opposed to women’s ordination.
Conservative Evangelical
Conservative Evangelicals argue all of the above points and add to them.
- The original ordination of women was a mistake that should be rectified. This is based on the functional subordination of women to men as illustrated by the creation story in Genesis chapter 2, in which Adam is created first and Eve later, as a helper for him.
- Jesus’s own submission to God is used as an example of how submission is positive and God-ordained.
- In addition to the argument about the priest representing Christ at the Last Supper, there is the argument that a women bishop could not also be an icon of God the Father – who is male.
- By allowing women into such positions of power we are in danger of 'feminising' the church, thereby driving away men who are believers – a number which is already dwindling because of the church's failure to recognise the unique role given to men.
- While a sizeable minority in the church still object to the whole principle, it is not felt that the time of 'reception' to the idea has concluded.
Those in favour
- Women and men are equal in God’s sight. It is argued that in Genesis the creation stories put them on the same level and only make women subject to men after Adam and Eve have rebelled. Even then, the position of women in the Old Testament is not one of clear-cut submission.
- Women’s submission to men is not God-ordained and inevitable, as can be seen from the key roles that women play in the early Christian church and the way in which Jesus himself overturned his society’s attitude towards them. Indeed, one of the women is described by St Paul as an 'apostle', putting her on the same level as the Pope may be said to inhabit today.
- Many of the writings which seem to place women in a submissive position need to be read in the context of events at the time. For example, women would have been thought more likely to be prey to heresies since they were not educated in the same way as men.
- Tradition is not set in stone but does develop. This means that using tradition as an argument for prohibiting the ordination of women bishops won’t hold up. If it did, we would never have split from Rome and become the Church of England.
- A woman is seen by society as more accessible than a man, so women bishops would be more, rather than less effective in encouraging people to come to the church.
- It would be more damaging to the church to continue to prevent women becoming bishops than to risk the disfavour of those within the church who disagree with ordaining women bishops.
The heart of the matter
What is it that makes people more interested in this topic than anything else the church is discussing at the July Synod, including assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia?
For society at large it is difficult to view this issue as anything other than a question of women’s rights. But it is far more than a discussion about whether a woman is capable of managing people and leading them spiritually. In fact it goes directly to the heart of what individual Christians like me believe about the nature of our relationship with God; who God is; how he relates to us; what his will is for us both as individuals and as a community.
If I, as a liberal Anglo-Catholic woman, am confronted with the view that God is specifically male, where does that leave my value? I have been created inherently inferior to men and not in God’s image – not a line of reasoning that from experience of both God and man I am inclined to follow. How can I relate to a church that has already subjected me?
If I, as an Evangelical Christian woman, am confronted with a view that God does not require submission but encourages equality, what then is my role in the church? Does this mean that I am encouraged relate to my husband and to God in a different, more proactive manner? And how will that influence my spirituality and personal relationships?
I remember hearing a debate on the ordination of women over dinner in 1991. It was proposed that this was an issue of women's rights, but I felt strongly that this was wrong. No one – man or woman – has the right to be a priest. It is a particular calling to a difficult but amazing role in God's church and as such it is up to God who is or isn't going to be one. If women have been called to be bishops, then perhaps it is not up to us to justify or condemn it in terms of scripture but simply to work out how to make that happen.
This might be a simplistic way of looking at the issue and in other circumstances it would be. However, we are talking about a large number of believing Christians in the General Synod, praying to be guided by God. They might be imperfect but if God can't manage his own General Synod, what hope is there for the rest of his plans?
There is an interesting passage in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts chapter 5 verses 38 and 39), where Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee or teacher, comments on the teachings of Peter and says: 'If this idea or this work is of men, it will come to nothing. But if it is from God, you can't stop it, in case by chance you are found to fight against God.'
