ARK OR YEAST? REFLECTIONS ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH (2)

The so-called ‘Elizabethan Settlement’ which shaped the Church of England as a National Church meant that Anglicanism developed tasked with including all who could affirm three simple norms: ‘The Scriptures and the Gospels, the Apostolic Church and the early Church Fathers’ (Being an Anglican: http://www.churchofengland.org/our-faith/being-an-anglican.aspx) and it is arguable that inclusivity has been the benchmark of the Church.

Yet there is a strong drive in human beings to define what belongs and exclude that which doesn’t.  We tend towards the lure of dualism: light and darkness, flesh and spirit, male and female, good and evil etc…  Yet Anglicanism has held within itself the tension of opposites: it is both catholic and protestant; a church both existing in and relating to the temporal and spiritual worlds. 

There is much in scripture which suggests that we should make clear distinctions between the ‘saved’ and the ‘damned’ (to put it at its most basic whilst acknowledging all the other dualistic distinctions provided by religion).  This approach appeals to those who need religion to provide a sense of security (and they are both within and outside the church), yet is fraught with danger.  It is interesting to note that the picture provided by scripture is not so simple.  In the Book of Job, for example, Satan is not located in Hell but is part of the Court of Heaven, which suggests that the writer understood the need for some kind of integration of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.  How does one live with such apparently opposing movements?  Some traditions have developed to exclude the ‘impure’ and these tend towards the Ark principle and, arguably, feed -  and reflect - similar social movements.  The genius of the Elizabethan Settlement was to try to include as many as possible for the opposite led to ruptures in society.  One sees this constantly at work: at national levels this is evident in conflicts over land (Israel/Palestine; Unionist/Republican in Northern Ireland; Islamic militants/the West etc.) whilst in the Church of England it is most particularly apparent in the way evangelicals are focussed into excluding gay and lesbians from the church (or, at least, its structures) together with the heated debate as to how those opposed to the ordination of women to the Episcopate can remain included in the church.  Arguably the current energy being focussed into a demand that Britain leave the EU is fed by this same desire to exclude what is perceived to be a threat to the ‘purity’ of the nation.

The expression of desire to recognise we lived in ‘One World’ which gained popularity twenty years or so ago seems to no longer hold the appeal it did. As we move towards an increasing sense of a living in a global society we also seem to be tending towards its opposite.  The idea of moving towards living together in one world where those who ‘have’ see it as their duty to aid those who ‘have not’, together with the concept of a universal (catholic) church seems to be in the decline.  The ‘pure’ nation state existing in isolation from other states, only relating to them insofar as is necessary entices more and more people.  Yet, in the face of the fact we do live in a world which, increasingly, realises we live or die together with which will the church side?

IN CHRIST ... THERE IS NO LONGER MALE OR FEMALE. WE ARE ALL ONE IN HIM

On May 9th St. Andrew's Church hosted a meeting of the Havering Deanery Synod who were considering the provision of Episcopal oversight consequent to the Ordination of Women to the Episcopate. One speaker put forward the reasons that this should be delegated by the Ordinary (i.e. Diocesan Bishop) and provided by a Code of Practise the other (a woman deacon) argued for ‘co-ordinate jurisdiction’ with the diocesan bishop (jurisdiction conferred directly by the Measure rather than by way of delegation from the diocesan bishop.) The Synod was only asked to indicate which of the two methods it would support and at the end of the meeting, on a show of hands, rejected a Code of Practice by a majority of 2 to 1.

Whatever the theological or ecclesiological reasonings behind these two proposals I found myself deeply disturbed by a particular line of argument from many of those who wished for alternative jurisdiction. After the two speakers had presented their views (and it was interesting that the woman who spoke against the Code of Practise spent most of her time explaining why she could not support the ordination of women as either priests or bishops) members of Synod were invited to express their views. Of the app. 12 people who came forward, only two were women. All representatives of the leading ‘Reform’ (i.e. conservative evangelical) parish spoke and it was what they said which cause me such unease.

The main argument they put forward concerned their inability to recognise the authority of women in the church. As conservative evangelicals they frequently referred to S. Paul’s injunction ‘wives, be subject to your husbands … For the husband is head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church…’ (Eph. 5:21) Most of those who spoke were young (men) with a “passion for mission” who believed themselves called to ‘ministry’ and stated that unless their needs were provided for by the Measure, they did not feel they would have a place in the church. As they spoke I sensed a deep split in them whereby the feminine has to be subservient to the masculine. This matter of male-headship is so fundamental that it must emanate from a deep part of their psyche which is fed by such arguments proposed by St. Paul. Yes, they said that women and men are equal, but could not exercise the same functions. Many of their arguments, from a conservative point of view, seemed reasonable. But there was a sense of an iron fist in the 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? 

I was saddened by the lack of women who spoke (those who did strongly supported the Code of Practice). Subsequently, talking with a woman priest she described the way that women, when faced with aggression, will become silent and retreat. And that is what I felt was happening at the Synod. What I sensed was an aggressive masculinity (cloaked in ‘reason’) that rejected the feminine. I also sense that many women seem to collude with this – after all, they have had to be subservient to men.

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 being recommend and selected for ordination come from such backgrounds.

There is an elephant in the room, and it needs to be named – or does silence indicate our acceptance?