
Every now and then the lectionary throws up a reading which, as my old headmistress used to put it, “gives you furiously to think”; this morning’s reading, 1 Tim 5:1-16 is one such. Maybe you have to be a feminist to think that all sounds a wee bit sexist, but then I turned to the (wonderful) Reflections for Daily Prayer 2019-2020, to find Fr Marcus Green commenting:
These verses can seem patriarchal and even plain sexist. However, it’s always easy to sit in judgment on another community in another place in another age, and I am sure that others in future will do it to us too.
There is wisdom, let us attend!
Fr Green reminds us that in Paul’s time attitudes were different, and what Paul was counselling was, by the standards of the day, pretty radical. He also (and his reflections really are super) gets us to pause in our own day by referring to the fact that our first religious duty is to our own family:
In a world where the elderly and the infirm are too often viewed as a burden, and where care is seen as the State’s responsibility (or a business if we can afford to pay) perhaps we might be slower to feel uneasy with anything Paul writes. His solutions may not fit our lifestyles, but behind them lie the simple understanding that every person is a person loved by God
Again, let us attend to such wisdom!
It is also a reminder that context matters.
That said, would we really, even in our day, take seriously the instruction to “refuse to put younger widows on the list; for when their sensual desires alienate them from Christ, they want to marry.” There’s no getting away from the fact that to most modern ears this comes through as thoroughly sexist, and patriarchal. Paul clearly had his problems either with the way some women in the church behaved, or, as some think, with women and sex, full stop. That would hardly make him unique in the history of mankind, my father, who was already an old man when I was born, once said to me that: ‘any man who says he understands women is fooling only himself’.
But, if we can, and should, take Paul’s comments here in context rather than as prescriptive, it raises interesting questions about why we should read some of his other comments about women as definitive? In the Roman tradition there’s a ready answer, which is that the Papacy has accepted that it is so. In my own Church we have long taken a more balanced view of tradition.
As someone who considers herself an Anglo-Catholic, I value tradition hugely. I have written here about the value of the eucharist and how, for me, as for all Catholics, Christ is present in the consecrated bread and wine; I simply have no need for over-precise definitions. Tradition is a crucial check on what could otherwise be a gadarene rush to be on trend. But if it is not held in check, then it can lead to ossification.
Married priests are but one example. No one denies that in the early church and for long afterwards, priests and even bishops could be married, and there is nothing in Scripture against it. Equally, no one can deny that the Church came to take the view that this was not desirable and forbade it. That my own church, like others, came back to the earlier view is also undeniable. Where trouble comes is if a church insists that its view is definitive, when history shows there is no definitive teaching here. There is a view in the Church of Rome that priestly celibacy is a discipline, but it is not one which applies to some of the Easterm Rite Churches or to the Ordinariate. In other words, even there, there is adaptation to circumstances.
In my own church, this acceptance that tradition needs to be balanced with reason and scripture has led some to feel, as they always will, that we have gone too far, too fast, whilst others, equally naturally, feel that we have moved at a snail’s pace and then, only under huge pressure. But here we see another way in which the Anglican Church is a via media – a middle way. We seek to bring to the reading of Scripture the insights of scholarship as well of tradition, and working together, to find how best to preach the gospel to a world which has never really wanted to hear it.
Your father was, as usual, completely correct.
Personally, I think the celibate, unmarried priesthood was a rule that was designed to combat the inheritance of offices in the Church, a way of making it more open in feudal Europe/, that worked to some extent. For now, at least, we don’t live in feudal Europe, and perhaps the rule should be carefully and prayerfully revisited. But as always, not my church, which has plenty of problems without borrowing those of others.
Tradition is important, as a check on novelty in particular, but the mark of a true conservative is to know that conditions do change and so must everything, while keeping what is essential.
Excellent post, dearest friend xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is only how Rome saw it. In the rest of the Catholic world, and certainly always in Orthodoxy, our priesthood was married so that they lived like their flock. This, for us, is an innovation. We have monks, whom I have the highest respect for, but clergy, generally, should be married folks, so that they understand the trials and tribulations of married life.
The article was intriguing, as I’m sure the comments attached will be.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, I’m Lutheran, and Luther said exactly the same. Some protestant churches require (or required) the clergy to be married, in fact.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, and if I remember rightly, only monks can be bishops? Seems more sensible than mandatory celibacy, which was never practised in the early church.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you, and I am sure you are correct. I like the general Anglican line which is that you keep the rules to doctrine and you keep doctrine to what is essential xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems possible that the issue of young widows was a thing because the issue of men dying young was also a thing. So, in the absence of paid employment for women or of a Welfare State, the question of what these women could do didn’t necessarily allow for the kind of solutions which appear obvious in the 20th century West. If you have a significant group of young people with no vocation to celibacy, a problematic relationship with their non-Christian relations, and no access to work what should the community to which they belong do to secure the best possible outcome for all concerned?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am sure you are right, which, of course, raises the question of what other areas has the context changed in a way that means what Paul said no longer need apply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This reminds me of a quote I just read in Fratelli Tutti:
“Yet something… had long been occurring during heat waves and in other situations: older people found themselves cruelly abandoned. We fail to realize that, by isolating the elderly and leaving them in the care of others without the closeness and concern of family members, we disfigure and impoverish the family itself. We also end up depriving young people of a necessary connection to their roots and a wisdom that the young cannot achieve on their own.”
All to say, for all his patriarchal tendencies, Paul probably knew more about caring for people than a lot of us do today.
I appreciate your Anglo-Catholic drive to be rooted in tradition. I know there are Catholics who care deeply about this, too, but I have to admit, after converting myself from Protestantism, I’ve indulged myself in luxury of being able to turn off my brain for awhile: “Rome has spoken, so I don’t have to think about it.” But what a rich tradition we have! It would be a shame to not delve into all of it because I think I don’t have to.
At any rate, thank you for the post. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you 🙂 As far as I am concerned, I am a catholic, but in the English tradition. I find myself unable to be a “docile” as Rome seems to want 🙂 xx But each to what we find we need and we are all one in Christ x
LikeLiked by 1 person