It’s often said that Anglicanism lacks coherence, how, for example can you have a church which ordains women in which there are people who don’t agree with that? The answer is simple and an example of Christian witness. Those who remain within the Anglican communion do so because they see it as their church, and they do not see the issue of the ordination of women as a cause for a break in communion. This is because the church exists because God acts, and he acts not because of what we do or do not do. We did not invent the church, it is given to us as our means of participating in his eternal reality. In which case it is a sign of Grace that those who were on opposite sides of the debate have theologically commited themselves not simply to tolerate each other, but to get beyond that and, in prayer and mutual communion, to pursue ‘mutual flourishing.’
Looked at that way it seems obvious. What else is a Christian to do? Those who could not, in all good conscience, commit to this left, and those of us who stayed regret their loss, for they are a formidable and Godly group. The rest of us followed what Paul said to the Ephesians, deciding ‘with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’
The Anglican communion offers itself an example, for good or ill, who yet knows, to see whether a church can cohere with such different views in it. Naturally at both ends of the spectrum there are those who cry “fudge!” What they really mean is that they’d like their view to have prevailed. I know women (and some men) who think that anyone who doesn’t accept the ministry of women should be driven from the church, and I know those on the other side too. But for most of us the 2014 settlement is one we want to see work. For me there are good arguments both way, and by tradition I was sceptical but in the end convinced by those arguing for it; the example of some of my female friends helped, as it was as clear to me as anything that it was the Spirit leading them. Some of us believe the resulting settlement has something to teach all churches about the reconciliation of relationships in the love of Christ.
There’s a caricature put about in terms of women in the ministry, that they are bra-burning feminists (did anyone really do this, or is it an urban myth?) with a liberal agenda. I can’t speak for those in the Catholic Church, but those I know in my own church are a mixed bag, and at least as many of us are in the catholic tradition, emphasising the corporate and the sacramental. The church is a human society founded on the life of the Trinity in which as Alison Milbank put it, ‘our worship bears witness to God’s holiness and the call to become holy.’ We think it important that this long tradition in our church plays its part alongside the evengelical tradition.
Indeed some of us don’t think the two are in conflict. I’m far more worried about the emphasis on managerialism and conversion strategies which seem not to see the parish as central to mission. Mission comes from the gift of our life to God and the growth in personal holiness, from work at parish level. These are the people with whom God has placed us in all our glorious diversity. At its best, good managerialism is rooted in that recognition. I often hear people, especially now, saying that “we” are the church and “we” don’t need buildings. We are, but we do. Places hallowed by those who came before us in the faith, are there for all. It’s one of the great things about the Church of England, we’re there for all who want us.
Trying to concentrate on the work God wants us to do locally is, for most of us, the task at hand. Part of that task is to take forward his word in unity. Women have always been good at reconciliation and healing, and in my wide experience, women’s ministry is a blessing to the Anglican church. Whether any other church will find that example one it would follow, who knows? I am glad not to be in a place where people spend time examining the obiter dicta of bishops in an hermeneutic of suspicion, but in one where generosity of spirit prevails. In my beginning is me, and the one soul whom I can hope to convert with God’s Grace is mine, and outwith that, if I can be of service then that’s all I want. The rest, well some thoughts are too high for me, and I’ll get on with cleaning up the church after yesterday’s socially-distanced Mass – and in this heat that’s a penance!
God bless you all!
Well, I am the cleaning captain of my parish. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Salutations from one of the cleaning women!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It can be a tricky business to decide whether something is a discipline within the Church, which is a matter of prudential judgement about which people can agree to disagree, or whether it is a doctrine, a revealed truth about faith and morals which the Church has received from the Apostles, about which disagreement is a more fundamental thing.
A further difficulty is discerning the end within the beginning. That is, if we do X now then it may have no very obvious effect but the internal logic of X is such that a century or two down the line it will have transformed the Church into something opposite to its current configuration. This was why the Fathers got embroiled so deeply into the Arian controversy which seems to be a knit-picking exercise over words that no one fully understands; but if the doctrine of Incarnation had been abandoned Christianity would have lost its unique reason for existing at all.
With Anglicanism many of its accommodations to modernity- contraception, divorce, ordination of women, abortion- both tread upon the territory of doctrine itself and display the qualities of a slippery slope. As a private body of citizens it can do whatever it wants of course but if it claims to be part of the universal Church I’m not sure by what authority it supposes that regional or national synods can alter doctrine that ecumenical synods have previously established. The then UK Prime Minister David Cameron made an unintentionally revealing remark after the C of E initially failed to agree to ordain women as bishops, “get with the programme!” he said. Anglicanism’s role as a representative of national society to the Church rather than as a representative of the Church to national society is a weakness for it when it comes to defending the entirety of the treasures which the Apostles have handed on to us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
Not sure Mr Cameron represented the mind of the C of E there, though I’ve little doubt many thought that way.
This was very thoroughly debated over two decades as you probably know better than me. For me it’s a case that this is what the church has decided to do, and getting with that programme.
If, as some in it fear, the RCC does follow our route, then thinks change, if not, not for it.
To my mind, too much here is cast in the way of accommodating modernity. I’ve two things to say here. As a woman I can see why some men might find that a problem, I can’t, as a woman, see it myself. As it happens I am at the moment almost a fifties style housewife as the majority of what I do is in the home and church, but I wouldn’t ever want to be in a place where I didn’t have the option of a career, or, like my mother, had to leave her career when she married. Not all modernity is bad!
My second quibble is that much of the debate ignores the experience of the women concerned. I have two very dear friends who long felt a call from the Spirit, and it wasn’t to be nuns, though one of them was for a spell. I am not qualified, and don’t know who is, to say to women who feel that call ‘you’re wrong.’
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I’ve experienced such warmth and help from other women who are in ministry that, from being a sceptic who agreed after long doubts, that I think it really is the outworking of the Spirit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A thoughtful post, and a thoughtful reply to Thoughtful (is there a way I can use the word one more time in this sentence). In any case, I’ve dealt a bit with women clergy, in my ELCA, and in the Episcopal church which we closely cooperate with. I’ve found them fine, although I’m reluctant to take that anecdotal evidence and make it general, because of a fair number of whom I have read, who appear to be not so fine. However, that is also true of male clergy.
Too often we conflate too many issues together. Almost all of the things in our churches which are called modernity, I object too, and some I consider an abomination. I don’t think women clergy are a particular problem in and of themselves but are too often bundled into modernity. Nor do I think that they are a necessity, in a church that properly provides a full range of places for us all to serve, such as deaconess programs, the title shouldn’t be worth tearing congregations apart, which we have also seen.
In short, I remain firmly astride the fence, dearest friend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fences are fine if they are comfy. Thank you dearest friend, and I shall try to moderate the passive-aggro thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Luckily, I had my saddle with me, which helps a lot. 🙂 Not to worry, we speak as we speak, dearest friend.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very true, and a saddle is a good thing on a fence. I need one of those side-saddle thingys in “She wore a yellow ribbon”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed. That would be quite fetching, I think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s who and what it might fetch that worries me 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, all life has some risk, but that would most likely only fetch proper people and things. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I nearly wrote ‘modernism’ rather than ‘modernity’ but decided that that was too narrowly theological. What I chiefly mean by modernity in this context is not the *things* that modernity has made available but the attitude of mind which has accompanied those things. There is an implicit assumption that because things are the way they are then it was inevitable that they would be so but I doubt that. It was possible for changes in technology and society to liberate people from some burdensome situations without at the same time uprooting them. It is possible now to retain the gains that have been made and also to recreate a rootedness in place, family and faith. So I don’t want to abolish women in the workplace but I do want to end the loneliness that has become the most deadly epidemic in the modern world to date.
No doubt many women fill ministerial roles within Anglicanism and the other Protestant denominations extraordinarily well. What it means though is that they believe God has given them a vocation to be outside the church Catholic and to repudiate at least one element of the faith handed down to us from the Apostles. The ways of the Spirit are mysterious certainly but not contrary to Reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you.
I’d say we inherit a situation and a context. Some feminists would (and I know one who does) see me as a great disappointment. Here I am with two university degrees and a background in teaching and high-level admin doing a bit of supply teaching and acting as a homemaker. That’s my feminism, it frees me from the tyranny of the ideologues on both sides.
Loneliness is an epidemic, you’re SO right. This is where I can’t see that any catholic can be an unconditional supporter of capitalism, and here I am with the Pope as well as my own ABC, we have to find a better way of organising ourselves – what? No idea, I clean churches and leave that to those with ideas.
As an Anglican I can’t agree that we are outside the Catholic Church, but having promised Phillip and C that I shall be a good girl, I shan’t go there, so please forgive me 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
My friend from Flanders once said to me that it was sad that our churches are so often locked outside service times. As you say the Church of England is there for everyone, which Adrian Hilton and Martin Sewell also emphasise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with them both, Nicholas. The parish system is wonderful and we should work with and within it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The downside is that many of our parish sanctuaries are not actually big enough for the whole locality to become Anglican – but there are ways around that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are, and what matters is we join in and try. I leave it to the big wigs to work out the hard stuff – we handmaidens just get on with it 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is a thoughtful piece Jessica. As you know, we were, and remain, on opposite sides of the divide here, and in so far as your kind comment included men like me, thank you for it. I wish nothing more for my former communion that it can do what you are suggesting here. My own doubts the other way were, as you know, in connection with women such as your friends, it seemed then that they were being moved by the Spirit. I couldn’t get there in the way you did, but as my recent post showed, I can see that they provide an example to ponder.
For my part, I think there is no issue in the Catholic Church, and those who wish to make one out of it should go in the opposite direction to me. I have always wondered why they didn’t and don’t.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is such a divisive issue; people feel very strongly about it. While the CofE is muddling through, it has been costly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is natural that they should. For those, like myself, for whom that was part of the reason for leaving well, we have had our say and did not prevail. A gentleman withdraws at that moment and hopes that those who prevailed got it right – we shall see.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Unfortunately there is no room for compromise. They wanted to administer the eucharist and other sacraments and deliver sermons. Had they simply wanted more general involvement, a compromise could have been found.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But if they felt called by the Spirit what compromise was possible except the one reached in 2014?
LikeLike
I agree: from their perspective they felt called so they put themselves forward. I’m open to that possibility – but I come from an infallibilist, Cartesian epistemology, so I always struggle with these issues when I have doubts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a natural muddle-headed Anglican Nicholas, so I fail to see boundaries visible to others – but you have my sympathy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t see very clearly in the Spirit these days except in a few things. I’m actually surprised C hasn’t posted on the Hagia Sophia business.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe this will prompt him 🙂 We all, as I know, go through dry seasons, and coming out of a very long one, you have my love and sympathy x
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. I’m very fortunate that I have had someone at church to occasionally have long conversations with. I never thought I would be struck with agnosticism, but when it came last year it changed things.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know one thing only, that however hard it is to believe at times, the Lord does not try us beyond our strength, even if at times it seems that way to us. xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you x Yes, it was men like you, but I appreciate why you went and that it was a whole pile of stuff on which you’re more qualified than me.
I’ve apologised to Phillip and will to Scoop. As you know, I’m great at the written equivalent of opening my mouth without first engaging brain – pinky promise to be better 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you twice. It can be hard to find the tone after a while away, but I am glad to see you back and hope for more. I will do a sort of response.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Awww 🙂 x
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLike
Alas, the link didn’t work Rob xx
LikeLiked by 1 person