The matter
of male-headship has just re-emerged with the announcement that the Rev. Rod
Thomas, chairman (sic) of the fundamentalist group, Reform, has been chosen to be ordained as a bishop Reform is a network of 'individuals and churches within the Church of England (who are) committed to reforming the Church of England from within according to the Holy Scriptures.' In particular they believe that ‘the Bible clearly teaches
that …. men (should) take self-sacrificial responsibility for the spiritual
oversight of the domestic and church family.’
This is such a fundamental tenant of
belief for some evangelicals that it must emanate from a deep part of the
psyche fed by such arguments proposed by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Yes, they say that women and men are equal,
but cannot exercise the same functions.
Many of their arguments, from a conservative point of view, seem
reasonable. But there is a sense of an
iron fist in a velvet glove: a ‘passive-aggressive’ tone to their argument. What might happen to them if they allowed
themselves to live under the authority of a woman? What would happen to their sense of power if
they had to assume the feminine? This is
the same line of reasoning that leads to women having to be veiled in some
Islamic countries. I realise that some
speak of the way it affirms their religious convictions, yet it seems an
extreme way of doing so when compared to men and requires the complete hiding of identity. I also note the way in which those cultures
which assert such norms (i.e. male supremacy) also persecute homosexuals and much of the argument for doing so is based on
the way the feminine is ‘confused’ with the masculine.
Beyond this, what also concerns me is
that the wider church seems unable – or unwilling – to confront this argument
that men must have the power over women.
There is no doubt that, whilst the number of churches that teach this
principle is small, it is also flourishing and many of those going into
training for ordination come from such backgrounds. It is not only conservative Islam that seeks
to deny women an equal place with men and support a masculine power and
authority that is unable to be open to the feminine.
In light of
this I have written the following letter to Archbishop Justin:
‘I am aware
that Mr. Thomas is chairman of Reform, an organisation which states that its
members ‘are working to identify practical ways of reforming the Church of
England’. Two of the more objectionable
aims of this ‘reform’ concern its approach to gay people and women. I assume you are aware that it publically
states: ‘Gay male love flourishes with
‘variety’, and lasts longest with non-monogamy. Monogamy tends to lengthen heterosexual
relationships but shorten homosexual ones’ and am surprised, to say the
least, you are prepared to ordain someone who supports this outrageous
statement. Just how does this accord
with being a person of ‘sound learning’ which the Ordinal requires? And will
Mr. Thomas be expected to take part in the ‘shared conversations’ on sexuality
that are currently taking place or will he be excused from this process?
Reform’s
promotion of ‘male headship’ and the consequential subjection of women is
another deeply divisive and aggressive belief.
In my ministry I have sat listening to the stories of many women who
have been deeply hurt and damaged by those who promote this view, just as I
have sat with gay men and lesbians who have been subjected to emotional,
spiritual and psychological violence by their treatment from ‘biblical’
Christians. How does the requirement for
a bishop to agree to promote peace and reconciliation in the Church and in
the world; and … strive for the visible unity of Christ’s Church (Ordinal) accord
with someone whose views are a cause of division and are unacceptable to the
majority of people?
In 2011 I
resigned my Living having reached the age of 65 but retain a passion to see the
Church of England able to attract people of this generation to the gospel. If Mr. Thomas is ordained bishop this can only
show that someone who promotes bigotry in the name of Christianity can be a
leader of the Church. Whilst this may
appeal to extremists, what message does it send out to most people who no
longer are prejudiced against gays and lesbians and are seeking to be inclusive
of women?
Whilst the
Church of England may be a broad church, I would like to know if you really
want these - extremist - views to “flourish” when they are contrary to the
declared beliefs of the Church of England?’
* Gal. 3: 28
No comments:
Post a Comment