This is a very sensible and mission-oriented address. I was particularly struck by this statement: “I believe that the Church of England is one province of our beloved Communion and not the head Office.” Likewise, the Archbishop of Canterbury should not be the head bishop of the Communion. The Anglican Covenant, however, will make him that.
Thank you, Bishop Matthews for all that you have said. And for the way you have pointed out that the Church exists for those with whom we disagree as well as for those who agree on principles they hold dear. We should not be rent asunder by disagreement, but seek to work together whwerever we can. Sadly some people in the Anglican Communion have decided only to live with those with whom they agree, and to discriminate with those with whom they disagree by exclusion. I regret that stance deeply. In Christ we are one and that is what matters. Una
A splendid address, and helpful in basing itself on a clearly articulated understanding of the apostolic succession (and what a treat nowadays to hear a bishop affirming the physical Resurrection of Jesus as central to the proclamation of our faith). I wonder, though, as a Canadian Anglican, are we really to understand that our episcopate was previously "incomplete"? Taken to its logical extreme, that position would seem to imply that every diocese ought to have both a male and a female bishop simultaneously! Far better, surely, to think of it as the Church freeing itself of unnecessary restrictions on whom it may call to exercise episkope.
All that said, I would dearly like to see some engagement with an argument put forward some years ago by the then-Anglican priest, now a Roman Catholic, Fr. John Hunwicke (archived here: http://www.trushare.com/27AUG97/AU97HUNW.htm). He suggested that the real challenge was not necessarily to do with "sacramental validity" but with how a woman priest or bishop could be understood as an icon of the "Fatherhood of God", a theme apparently crucial to primitive Christianity (seen in the retention of the Aramaic "Abba" in otherwise Greek-speaking communities). Paul, suggests Hunwicke, saw his "fatherly" relationship to the churches under his care as "paternal in a starkly sexual and even genital sense". Later, Ignatius saw the bishop as the "tupos tou Patros".
While acknowledging the contingency of any cataphatic attributions, Hunwicke cautions that embarrassment about calling God "Father" -- and about the concomitant understanding of the orders of Christian ministry as, in some sense, "patriarchal" -- entails a retreat from the very essence of primitive Christian theology, and indeed Christ's own teaching. He therefore asks whether advocates of women's ordination are willing to argue that a woman can indeed be a "signum efficax of the Patria of God", just as the water of baptism is an effectual sign of the washing of regeneration (where milk or wine would not be).
Has such an argument ever been mounted? Perhaps, in light of Bishop Matthews's comments, we would have to explain simultaneously how a male priest consecrating the Eucharist can be a signum efficax of the Blessed Virgin!
The most engaging part of the Bishop's address is contained in the following section:
"Beginning in the late 60’s and early 70’s, the seminaries of the Communion began to emphasize the need to critique the tradition. Liberation theology, Black theology and feminist theology, to cite examples, began to highlight the gaps and oversights we had permitted in our reception of the Biblical narrative."
She really understates her point. In fact, critical theologies of the type she cites have radically debunked the credibility of gender segregation which is alive and well to various degrees in the Communion.
Notwithstanding, the conversation, including the conversation in Canada, continues to be about, as the Bishop indicates, women's ordination within a field of institutional sensitivities to Anglo-Catholics here and conservative evangelicals there.
What is missing in the Bishop's address, and in the corporate response by the church, is an unqualified commitment to gender equality as a matter of human rights.
As long as there remain, as a matter of pastoral policy, no go parishes and no go "altars" for female priests and bishops, then the church's commitment to equality is compromised. The ability of even a few parishes to block the full sacramental expression of female priests and bishops makes a statement about the equality or not of every single baptized female person. The presence of women in episcopal office is not a consolation prize in this regard.
Bishop Matthews is careful to include in her address how her being a female in episcopal orders has not been overly upsetting in her work with some other bishops i.e. its not that bad, some of the boys are quite happy to work with me on some things. One wonders why validation must constantly be rooted in such ground.
Hunwicke's argument is in fact very common. It's difficult to engage with from a practical point of view because it presses on so many 'fault-lines' in Christianity which make Christians of different persuasions very anxious (it's not intellectually difficult to engage with).
So one could say:
(1) there weren't any 'priests' in first-century Christianity. This is true. And yet early Christians celebrated the Eucharist (or something like it). But they did have priests from the second century and we've still got them. 'Apostolic succession' etc.
(2) it is absurd to insist that God is male (or exclusively male). What, then, of the virgin conception, Mary, mother of Jesus/God etc.? And what of the fact that Jesus and Paul did regard God as male? Answer, of course, they were 'conditioned' by their time. What, then, of Jesus as God and Paul as key builder of the authoritative tradition? Answer: 'kenotic Christology' deals with former and Paul is fallible. But many people shy away from these concepts.
So it seems to me:
(1) 'orthodox' people like Hunwicke are wrong to insist on theirs as the only way;
(2) 'liberals' likewise cannot insist on the rightness of their 'take' (even though I personally am convinced it is right);
(3) messy compromises (including acccommodation of Hunwicke-like priests who wish to remain Anglicans) are inevitable.
(4) I do think that Bishop Victoria is not taking seriously enough the arguments of people like Hunwicke (as was).
Jesse, how much of the theology you just succinctly enunciated is based on ancient – and archaic -- views about the roles of men and women in human reproduction, and applying those roles to God?
Jesus is the only-begotten. In ancient times, who did people think did the begetting? Men. They didn't know that begetting (conception) requires equal contributions of material from men and women. Even when 17th-century scientists first saw sperm under a microscope, they believed that the sperm was carrying a literally microscopically-small teensy human being (a homunculus?) to the woman. The woman was seen as a vessel, as passive, as fertile soil to accept and grow what the man delivered. God was not seen as passive, as a mere static thing. God was seen as active, therefore, God was seen as male.
I would go beyond Paul's statement that in Christ there is neither male nor female (funny how that gets overlooked when it comes to priests).
God was never created and will never cease to exist. God is eternal. Being eternal, God does not need to reproduce. Hence, God is neither male nor female.
But! God cannot create that which God cannot imagine/visualize/think of. God created human beings in God's own image. Male and female God created them. (Genesis 1:27) Therefore, God contains both masculine and feminine.
Or, as I like to put it, God is both and neither male and female.
I’m sorry, but God the Father is limiting God, is constraining God, is confining God.
I recognize the value of tradition. I recognize the need for the Church to hold onto its roots. But "We've always thought this way, we will always think this way, world without end, amen" creates a sterile house with no room for the Holy Spirit.
Bishop Victoria mentions that the Sydney diocese gave $10,000 to the Christchurch diocese after the earthquake and Peter Jensen has offered her accommodation in Sydney should she need a respite. All very nice, but I am sure many of the reasonable laity of Sydney would have been disappointed had he done less and it needs to be seen in the perspective of my suburban parish in Dunedin which has given $50,000 shared between the Maori and Pakeha dioceses. Also while ++Jensen might be willing for a woman bishop to stay in his guest house it does not negate the fact that should Bishop Victoria want to participate in a Eucharist while in Sydney, like Bishop Barbara Darling of Melbourne, she could only do so as a deacon.
I recall a conversation at College some 27 or 28 years ago where we were discussing the proper way to address female priests. (We were inclined, at Trinity, to address male priests as "Father."). A much younger Victoria Matthews, a mere priest at the time, opined that female priests should also be called "Father."
I've never known if she was serious or not,
"On June 13, just a very few weeks ago, when the fourth and fifth major earthquakes struck [both over 5.5] the icon within the icon of the cathedral, the Rose Window, fell inwards along with 75% of the west wall."
I had not heard this. :-( Prayers for the Diocese of Christchurch!
"'Fatherhood of God', a theme apparently crucial to primitive Christianity (seen in the retention of the Aramaic "Abba" in otherwise Greek-speaking communities"
I would argue that "Abba" (a baby's babbling sound interpreted---by eager parents!---as signifying parenthood and, furthermore, gender of) was left untranslated because of the shockingly embarrassing *intimacy* of the term when translated [Would anyone else *cringe* if we said "Our Da-da in Heaven"? I would! O_o (Just as much if it was "Our Mommy")]
Many thanks, John and peterpi (and I'm fascinated by your anecdote, Malcolm French; it's exactly the sort of thing that Fr. Hunwicke wonders aloud about in his piece!).
Naturally I am on the whole sympathetic to all the reasons one might simply want to dismiss this particular Anglo-Catholic argument -- though scriptural proof-texting (Gal. 3:28) offers sauce for Bishop Goose as well as Bishop Gander. And I always have a minor heart attack when it is suggested that we must decide which of Jesus' words are "historically conditioned" and therefore safely ignored, and which are of eternal significance. That sounds like too much responsibility for anyone not endowed with an infallible magisterium... Fr. Hunwicke's point, in any case, is simply that a disciple of the Christ of the gospels cannot conscientiously say, except in an extreme apophatic mode, that God is "not Father", whatever else may be said about God.
In this particular case, it seems better to engage with the (Anglo-) Catholic argument by asking, "What is it about 'fatherhood' that Jesus has in mind when he calls God 'Father'?" Is there anything in it that we recognize today as strictly limited to male parents? peterpi's questioning of ancient biological theory goes right to the point, at least in one aspect. But surely Jesus (and Paul) don't have just that in mind. And we can also helpfully consider what such a title *excludes* from God's characteristics (e.g. God the Father is emphatically not Diana of the Ephesians). Is there, today, a serious risk of confusing Christianity with pagan fertility cults served by priestesses, as various Anglicans opposed to women's ordination have warned (C. S. Lewis, Eric Mascall)? If there is, I suggest that the problem arises from misunderstandings separate from the admission of women to holy orders!
Fr. Hunwicke is concerned -- and may we concede that he is right in this? -- that the ministries of the Church should be understood to reflect a Christian understanding of the Godhead (as in Ignatius, who compares the bishop to the Father and the deacons to Christ, i.e. sent from the Father). If we are to engage seriously with Fr. Hunwicke's argument, we must advance a persuasive understanding of the role of the Father in the Trinity and demonstrate that a woman can be the icon of that role in the life of the Church.
Has *that* been attempted, ideally based on scriptural and patristic sources? That, I suspect, is how we will win our "conservative" brethren, or at least win their respect. They are mostly deaf to tub-thumping about equality and rights.
'A much younger Victoria Matthews, a mere priest at the time, opined that female priests should also be called "Father."'
Malcolm, many years later, when I had just moved to the Diocese of Edmonton and Victoria Matthews was my bishop, after I had been calling her 'Bishop' for several weeks, she said to me "'Victoria' works quite well too".
'That, I suspect, is how we will win our "conservative" brethren, or at least win their respect. They are mostly deaf to tub-thumping about equality and rights.'
Jesse, if your conservative brethren are evangelicals and not Anglo-Catholics, they are also deaf to arguments about whether or not a woman can be an icon, in the life of the Church, of the role of the Father in the Trinity. This is because they don't see that as part of the New Testament job description for a presbyter in the Church.
While we're worrying about how a female bishop can represent the fatherhood of God, I wonder if we might also address the question of how a male bishop can represent the motherhood of God?
The point, which has been made for over a millennium and a half in the Christian tradition, is that God is beyond biological gender categories. Yes, we do refer to the first person of the Trinity as "Father" because that's what Jesus did. But, as has been pointed out (I think by Hilary of Poitiers, if memory serves correctly), the revelation is of God as Father, not of father as God. Nor of God as male. (I think it was Arnobius who said that the word "god" is grammaticall masculine, but we should not conclude from that that God is biologically masculine.)
And, at any rate, I don't see how the priest or bishop is able, let alone required, to represent God in all attributes. The whole debate is a red herring.
Re the posting of PeterPi, above: I'm embarrassed to say it had never occurred to me to consider that conceptualizations of deity and of Incarnation are conditioned by biological understandings of conception at the time they were formulated--but of course they were.
IMHO that puts the entire discussion about gender roles in the church on an entirely different footing. Among other things it forces acceptance that the Incarnation needed not just the Virgin as vessel--but required her ovum. I believe overlooking that little fact has allowed some to continue to give short shrift to the place of women in the church. The fact is--without his mother's egg, DNA and the rest of it, you got no Jesus.
FWIW, the "father" -- in the thinking of that time -- represents the force of creativity and life, the female being merely the receptive, nurturing "earth" that promotes but does not create life. (Obviously this ties in with pagan imagery too -- so much for the way in which beliefs about reality, even mistaken ones, shape and form all sorts of religious thinking.)
We do know better now, and there are enough hints in the tradition to open the doors to seeing the priest as "father" in the sense of creativity quite apart from "maleness."
More importantly, there is ample material in the Fathers (ahem!) and in the scholastics to counter the notion that the "Father" is "male."
I always thought that the Virgin Mary supplied the physical material (mater, Latin for mother, gives us the word material) for Jesus. Men were believed to contribute the spirit, which was the more important part of the mix. The Gospels tell us that the Holy Spirit came upon her, or that she was with child of the Holy Spirit: Mary's egg (physical material) plus the anima from the Holy Spirt.
@Tim - Now THAT'S the +Victoria I know.
@Jesse and @Alan - The essential problem with Fr. Huncliffe's argument (at least as presented here) is that it elevates one aspect of divine attribute above all others - which is, of course, the modus operandi of virtually every heresy. The iconic idea of "Father" is one aspect of how we think of God - and only one. But to follow the argument to it's logical conclusion, perhaps only a man who is also both a shepherd and a king - should ever be ordained. After all, how can a non-shepherd be an effective icon of the Good Shepherd, and how can a non-king be an effective icon of the King of Heaven?
Couldn't we just do away with the label 'father' and address people only by their first names? If we don't have a suitable form of address for female priests, then the title 'father' is redundant.
Although it might be argued that in a large organisation such as the Church we need senior, middle and junior managers - bishops, archdeacons, deans and priests serve as useful job descriptions - in a priesthood of all believers we diminish the discipleship of the laity by outmoded heirarchies.
Thanks for everyone's kind consideration of my question. Very helpful indeed. Alan and Tobias's references to the "Fathers" are very apt. And I am sensitive to Alan's questioning of the entire premise of Fr. Hunwicke's argument (i.e. if the bishop must represent God the Father, how are we to isolate just *one* attribute that is to be represented?). Bishop Matthews's "back-to-basics" understanding of the original thrust of the Apostolic calling (to be a witness to the resurrection and to proclaim the gospel) is absolutely the more credible foundation on which to build and re-build our understanding of episcopal ministry.
But I also think that her point about first teaching the Tradition before we critique the Tradition is well made. One of the hallmarks of Anglicanism is that we receive the Tradition (the scriptures, the creeds, the undivided ecumenical councils, the teaching authority of the Church), but we don't assume that the Tradition is never in need of correction. So, if I may be forgiven for invoking the 39 Articles as a shorthand of convenience, Articles VI, VII, VIII, XX, and XXI are counterbalanced by Article XIX: the Church receives, transmits, and submits itself to the Tradition, but the churches have also historically "erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith". A patriarchal understanding of ministry is an element of the received tradition, and it's one we should first seek to understand, interpret constructively, and then critique. Dismissing it altogether would be out of character for our communion.
Tim, you're quite correct! In particular the doctrine of male headship is a different hydra to be... beheaded. :) I sometimes wonder if those who would like to restore a late first-century polity entirely understand what they're wishing for...
Daniel, as it happens Fr. Hunwicke himself wrote a beautiful reflection on how Jesus had only Mary's DNA, where, now that I look at it again, he also offers some thoughts about the origin of Jesus' theology of God as "Abba" (i.e. that Mary taught it to him: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2009/05/may-sermon.html). An interesting read -- though of course for him the subject is irrelevant to the question of women in holy orders.
Daniel Berry is highlighting in contemporary terms the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation as expressed at Chalcedon. Jesus is made of the "stuff" of the Virgin Mary (back then they didn't know about the ovum, but thought it was the blood, which keen observers noted stopped flowing with pregnancy). Not just his body, but his whole "human nature" derives entirely, and solely, from Mary -- which is precisely why maleness or femaleness should not be an issue in the consecration of a human priest. All persons share in the same human nature by birth, and all Christians in the divine "Christ-nature" by the new birth (which is really adoption) of baptism.
The deeper one looks into the theology, the thinner the arguments against the ordination of women appear to rest almost entirely on ideas which are at odds with orthodox theology and anthropology.
JCF, I was under the impression that the popular "Da-da" interpretation of "Abba" (founded on the work of Joachim Jeremias, who did not go to that extreme) had been effectively demolished by more recent scholarship (e.g. Geza Vermes and, especially, James Barr in JTS 39 , 28-47). Of course, the same scholars point out that address to God as "Father" may be a much older Jewish insight!
Daniel Berry, thank you!
Maybe it's because I come from outside Christianity, maybe it's because I'm too rational for my own good, but thinking about the Incarnation can tie me in knots. Maybe that's why it's called a Mystery.
For me, the problem comes from trying to reconcile modern science with certain scriptural events. For example, I think about DNA, about scientific -- as opposed to theological -- parthenogenesis, etc. Your last sentence is spot on, in my thinking.
With all due respect, Jesse, I can’t see how one can read scripture without an awareness of the times they were written in, and the influences upon the writers. Such thinking does not mean that the faithful can just “safely ignore” what is written, but it can give them appreciation and fuller understanding.
And, the faithful can simply accept the Incarnation as happening in ways we humans are not meant to understand, which is why it’s called “faith”.
Ideally, the fact that in English and, I think, in Hebrew, "God" is a grammatically male word should not influence our thinking about God. But humans are not ideal, and the male grammar bleeds into our thinking about God. One only need look, for example, at the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel of the figure of God giving Adam life. But, I also suspect that God the Creator and Nurturer, God the Savior, and God the Holy Spirit will probably never catch on. Many “do” see God as male, in the physical sense of the word. They associate God with certain specific aspects of maleness. They then declare that, based on those same certain specific aspects, half the population is unfit to participate in certain aspects of the Church. So, in this instance, grammar is destiny.
On iconography, the prime text is not the particularity of Jesus as a man, but Genesis 1.27 (so God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them NRSV). To say that a woman cannot be an icon in the same sense as a man contradicts this basic text.
Jesus tells us that the fatherhood of God (mentioned in every new testament book apart from 3 John, so not to be ignored) is different from our conception of fatherhood in Matthew 23.9 - a deep text which has been insufficiently probed in the various critiques of patriarchy.
When I think about what we call each other, I think mainly of my Christian name, the one into which I was baptised, when the people who loved me said (to God) "this is Mark". It is, as I sometimes tell groups of schoolchildren, the name God knows me by.
If we paid more attention to the doctrine of creation and the sacrament of baptism, we'd have less problem with the doctrine of redemption (what we are redeemed to become) and the sacrament of communion - doctrinally and sacramentally we have ct=rated church cultures in which tail wags dog.
@ Richard: what you have just said about the "spirit" being the "more important part of the mix" would be called heresy by orthodox theologians who care about such things. Augustine understood the Incarnation as altering the status of our humanity definitively. The underpinning of your posting "overthroweth the nature" of our redemption. I suspect it's (yet another) a facile argument for denigrating the position of women. WAY past time to get over that.
Br. Tobias, thanks for the observation. I believe also that Chalcedon used the term "hypostatic union" to describe the nature of the Christ - and the Athanasian Creed wants us to understand that this union as indissoluble. I'm afraid we still have a lot of "heretics" among us that still have trouble with Jesus' humanity.
BTW, I personally perfer the phrase "Mother of God" to the term insisted upon by our Orthodox brethren, Theotokos, i.e., God-bearer. Since all such language is mythological anyway, it makes more sense to me to say that a god--any god--has to hae a mother. The earliest representations of deity from culture to culture are feminine. Deities with a penis seems not to become important until they become warriors (Exodus 15:3) instead of patrons of agrarian societies.
@ Jesse "A patriarchal understanding of ministry is an element of the received tradition, and it's one we should first seek to understand, interpret constructively, and then critique. Dismissing it altogether would be out of character for our communion."
Actually, the reverse is a more viable theory, i.e. the ministry tradition of the Church has been transmitted in a patriarchal understanding of society with credence given to socially assigned roles as "revealed" and biology posited as social destiny. It is a social paradigm that needs to be properly understood and then radically rejected--like a lot of other precious notions in our Communion.
As for the "fatherhood" of God, the term is so metaphorical as to be useless in the debate about the ordination of men and women to any order in the church.
By the by, as if anologia entis were not enough, folks may be interested in reviewing Geza Vermes' work "The Religion of Jesus the Jew" (Fortress 1993).
His chapter (6) "'Abba,Father:The God of Jesus" is very insightful. See especially the appendix to the chapter ("Abba Isn't Daddy") & the philological evaluation ( his own and that of James Barr) on this matter.
'Richard: what you have just said about the "spirit" being the "more important part of the mix" would be called heresy by orthodox theologians who care about such things.'
But so too, surely, is the corollary - that sacramental grace should be restricted by a dichotomy which does not obtain (Gal 3.28) in the economy of salvation - at the very least questionable from the same orthodox perspective (as Fr Malcolm observes, it's undue emphasis, whatever on, that foments heresy).
Rod: Yes, you make a very strong case starting from the opposite pole, and this is the argument that seems to have won the day in many of our provinces. My concern in this discussion was merely to sound the group about whether proponents of admitting women to the episcopate could meet a certain stripe of conservative on their own ground. The prevailing sentiment in the comments here seems to be that such a scenario simply concedes too much to our "opponents": we either cannot do it, or should not do it.
I absolutely agree with peterpi about the need to read scripture responsibly, with an eye to its authors' context and assumptions (and would we be having this conversation at all without that as a baseline?). But for me that’s what makes this particular issue so emotive! It seems very likely, for instance, that “Abba!” was shouted by the newly baptized as they emerged from the waters, now “clothed with Christ” and having received in themselves the Spirit of God’s Son, making them too to be “heirs” and “sons” (sic!) of God in Christ (Gal. 4:6; see W. Meeks, The First Urban Christians, pp. 87-8; has this insight been controverted?). That passage in Galatians, of course, follows our famous text about how there is no longer male or female. How sad to think that an image that was for our Christian forebears an innocent and transcending joy, and which is nearly ubiquitous in the New Testament (thanks Mark Bennet!), is now received with suspicion, or indeed as positively noxious.
But this isn’t the first big “paradigm shift” to arise from a sea change in social norms. At least we may be grateful that our new perspective has not been prompted – as Augustine’s revolutionary City of God was – by the presence of Visigoths or Vandals at the gates set to destroy the old social norms!
Anyway, thanks to all for some stimulating discussion. I shall withdraw from the field... :)
@ Jesse "My concern in this discussion was merely to sound the group about whether proponents of admitting women to the episcopate could meet a certain stripe of conservative on their own ground."
Good point, fair comment. I tend to approach this on the basis of advocating for human and civil rights, finding ways to advance the concept within the church, and looking for theological grounds, exegetical grounds in particular, upon which to establish a beachhead in that regard. Because there is such entrenched special pleading in the church with regard to human and civil rights (Rowan Williams and the Pope being two notable examples), I have a tendency be unsympathetic to concessions to traditionalists. It's a kind of preferential option for the marginalized ( women, GLBT) over against the privileged ( men, the hierarchy).
The ground of the debate is also important. I would describe the lingering rear guard by conservatives, the "male priest as alter christus" approach for example, as arcane and muddled; but more to the point it undermines the ability of the church to be taken seriously by the wider society.
Thanks for your perspectives on the issues.
Rod, I on the other hand do tend to see this as a theological issue -- which is not to negate the political / social aspect. But as Jesse is interested in the theological side, I think it fair to note that even some among the Eastern Orthodox are beginning to realize the full implications of the Chalcedonian definition: witness the Old Catholic / Orthodox consultation reported on some time back in the Anglican Theological Review.
My point was merely to question the soundness of the these that the bishop reflecting God the Father necessarily includes the bishop being male. Since the Fathers are clear that God the Father is definitively not male, that whole thread of theologizing must perforce be abandoned. It leads, ultimately, to a heterodox understanding of the Godhead.
The Roman Church attempted this line of reasoning in _Inter Insignores_ (that a sacrament requires "natural likeness" for recognisability) but quietly abandoned it as the implications of receptionism became obvious, and has removed the topic from the discussion table.
I have a friend in Christchurch who is a Reform type evangelical cleric and he even accepted Bishop Victoria.
I did not mean "spirit - the more important part of the mix" in terms of Incarnation theology. I meant it in terms of knowledge of reproduction at the time and the societal placing of women in a subordinate position to men.
@ Tobias "Rod, I on the other hand do tend to see this as a theological issue -- which is not to negate the political / social aspect."
There is an easier way. I wouldn't be bringing the Godhead into it at all. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I would reverse the order of things. I understand it as a social justice issue as well but one which gives rise to compelling theological problems.
Basically one has to choose between a fundamental theological anthropology that holds for the equality of persons, or one can choose a sacramental theology of holy orders in which "equal but different" is the engine that drives ordained ministry as exclusively male. You can't have both.
As every fan of Chalcedon must know, theological constructs have a tendency to be power games, empowering those authorized to formulate them in the first place.
When one distills arguments against the ordination of women,whether based on scripture or tradition or sacramental theology or all three, the finished product is always the same i.e., it is God will that only men can be presbyters/bishops.
The bottom line in all these theologies, even if there is a tendency to deny that God is actually male, is that for all practical purposes God is more like a man than a woman. It's called sexism.
It's hardly surprising that churches that have a phobia about women and women's bodies (and in one case uses a magesterium to control women's bodies) would rationalize blocking women from ordination as the will of God.
Hey, Peter Gross, I like your posting on gender-language and would like to add this to the mix: I believe confining figures of godhead to one particular gender construct severely limits its power. This is why I strongly oppose the removal of references to gender from liturgical language and hymnody. Such a denaturing is enervating to religious language and, I believe, our experience of godhead as well as of liturgy--to say nothing of one another!
I believe CS Lewis was onto something when, near the end of his book Perelandra, he brings about the insight that the deity is characterized by no fewer than SEVEN genders.
What, after all, do we think WE know?
You have to remember that the choice before the Reform Evangelical in Christchurch was between the Devil and the deep blue sea; between a woman and Colin Slee! If the choice had been for Colin Slee then full inclusion all round would have been the order of the day. With Victoria Matthews you simply get women and no quarter offered to homosexuals.
"With Victoria Matthews you simply get women and no quarter offered to homosexuals."
I don't believe the characterization of +Victoria as a reactionary on the gay issue is as warranted as is commonly supposed. Indeed, I was surprised by the shift in the discourse between her primatial candidacies and her translation. In the Canadian church, she was perceived as the more conservative by temperament while the NZ church press painted her a raving liberal.
As a priest acting under the authority of Bishop Victoria, in Christchurch, N.Z., I heartily approve of her understanding of women in ministry - whether as deacon, priest or bishop - to be thoroughly sound, given the current understanding of gender and sexuality that allows the possibility that gender is not a reasonable factor for discrimination in ministry.
After all, in the sphere of the laity, the N.T. Scriptures speak of the 'priesthood of 'All Believers' not just men - the criterion being belief and not sex or gender. Why then should the ministerial priesthood be barred to non-males?
Did not Jesus come to represent ALL humanity - not just men. After all, he needed to be some-where on the human gender scale, and in his milieu it was only possible for his particular ministry to be given any credibility if he was seen to be male.
I also agree with Bishop Victoria's view on Mary's special place in God's plan of redemption through her Son, Jesus. If the task of a priest in the Church today is to 'bring forth' Christ at the Altar, she brought forth Christ in her womb.
This seems, to me, to be a specifically (female) *priestly* vocation and activity.
'With Victoria Matthews you simply get women and no quarter offered to homosexuals.'
Victoria changed her mind on that issue. I know that for a fact, because she told me so herself.
Bishop Victoria was also involved in the Canadian meetings of the earlier 'St.Michael's Commission', which declared that neither the gender nor sexual orientation of a priest were matters that contravened any core creedal statement.
Perhaps the word 'adiaphora' might best describe both categories. She has not, since that time, seemingly, changed her opinion on this matter.
Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.
Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to
the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill
the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select
'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No
third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical,
advertising, or other purposes.