As I sat listening to a highly talented ladies’ A Cappella group I realised just how many gifted women took part in this evening’s service. The church’s vicar, The Revd Diana Glover led the service with exemplary warmth that made us feel really welcomed. One of the lessons was read by Her Honour Judge Johannah Cutts, QC and another by our mayor, Councillor Mimi Harker OBE.
It’s been a couple of weeks now since the Anglican General Synod failed to get a strong enough majority to pass the Women Bishops Measure. In my eyes – looking on as a respectful ‘neighbour’ – that was a deeply significant missed opportunity.
I hope there is no hubris in these observations because I’m acutely aware that even if there is still a glass ceiling preventing Anglican women clergy from serving in their episcopate the fact is the Church of England has a far greater proportion of women priests than, say, The Baptist Union has women ministers.
The argument against women bishops – often presented on TV a fortnight ago by lay women from Anglican parishes – rests, it seems to me, on some passages by Paul in which he talks of ‘headship’ within the family and Church as being the exclusive prerogative of men. Normally these observations come after the preamble that ‘of course we are all equal’ – echoes of George Orwell’s ‘some are more equal than others’ spring to mind.
I’m rather baffled by the notion that in our equal partnership of marriage I might have the ultimate ‘say’! Let me tell you it’s never worked like that in our house – and I think its slightly dishonest to talk of equality in one breath and then claim ‘headship’ in another – I simply don’t think that is how mutually respectful relationships are formed.
That’s why I was helped enormously by a letter in last Friday’s Times written by Tom Wright, the former Bishop of Durham and now a professor at St Andrew’s University. He made the point that passages like 1 Timothy 2.11-12 that talk of a woman being silent in worship are tremendously difficult to translate – both in the Greek used and the idiom and culture expressed. Wright put it like this; ‘there are multiple interpretative options’. Women being ‘silent’, for example, might be a way of saying they should study at home – and when Paul says: I do not permit; Wright argues it was probably just a temporary ‘ban’ whilst they became better trained and equipped.
When you look at scripture this way – that some utterances are ‘work in progress’ rather than a final and ‘for all time’ injunction – it makes quoting such verses a dodgy foundation when making big decisions.
That’s why I like the response we use at The Free Church after the bible readings – we say: In this is the Word of The Lord. In other words we have to use the minds that God has given us to tease out what he is saying to us in scripture. Some verses are obviously culture specific and can never be viewed as commandments for all time – if that were the case slaves would still be obeying their masters, women would never wear pearls – and neither would they teach or speak in church.
We must be more intelligent in our reading of scripture – that, I believe, is the only way to honour the God who has given us minds, intelligence and discernment.
I thank God for my women colleagues – and although my part of the Body of Christ doesn’t have bishops – I hope I live to see women play a full part in the episcopate of my neighbour’s church.
With best wishes,
Ian
No comments:
Post a Comment