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?

ARK OR YEAST? REFLECTIONS ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH (1)

The recent failure of General Synod on November 20^th to pass the necessary legislation that would allow the ordination of women to the episcopate has created an unexpected maelstrom which may result in fundamental changes to the governance of the Church of England.  The central matter, of course, concerns how to make provision for those who cannot accept this development in the exercise of ministry and, no doubt, the debate as to how to do this, will continue for some time. 

However, it also raises for me questions of ecclesiology that do not seem to have been aired in the debates.  At a basic level this concerns a theology of the Church which is rooted in two images that are in conflict: on the one hand is the sense of the Church as the Ark of Salvation, and on the other that the Church is called to be the Leaven which leavens the whole.  It seems that these two ecclesiology’s, when taken to their extremes, will always be in conflict and I wonder if this (amongst other things) lies at the heart of our present dilemma?

Taken to its extreme, belief that the Church is primarily called to be the Ark of Salvation appeals to those who need to define its nature and control the exercise of its purpose.  It provides a safe-haven for those who seek its shelter and needs a strong sense of leadership to maintain its course through the rough seas that constantly threaten it.  Those who dwell within it are assured of their salvation and have a strong desire that all are ‘brought on board’ lest they perish forever.  What lies beyond its walls can be viewed with a mixture of feelings and there will be a deep fear of the ship being damaged if it succumbs to pressure from outside and a fear of allowing on-board those who might damage the vessel.  The purity of the vessel is paramount.  But, as someone remarked to me, ‘What did Noah do about the woodworm?’

The other dynamic, that the Church is called to be the Leaven that leavens the whole is less concerned with itself than its effects on the rest of society.  Attention will be given to the world and there will be a recognition that God is present in all things; the Holy Spirit does not just work within the Church but (like the Leaven) throughout creation.  Such a view of the Church is co-operative and believes that there will be times when it needs to change because of the movement of the Spirit working in the world.  It is arguable that this theology emerged from a more ‘holistic’ time when there was no division between church and state and is prevalent in theocratic societies such as the Judaic world from which Christianity sprang.

These two theories, pushed to their extremes, may result in either the Church becoming simply an ever-diminishing Sect or a dangerous ideological movement, or it will become so identified with the world that it has no separate identity and will lose any sense of the Divine.  But these are extremes.

(to be continued)

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?