Not an article about women’s ordination
It is garbage night and you are preparing to do your weekly duty. As you put on your slippers so that your socks don’t get all gritty on the garden path, and rummage around for the torch (because you still haven’t fixed the outside light), your spouse interrupts your domestic ritual.
“I’ve had it! It’s typical of you, really.” You turn round to see what you’ve done now. She’s standing there, hands on hips.
“Each week you get your little torch and trundle out with the garbage. But you never consider giving me a go. Don’t you think I’m capable? Or would it be too much for your stupid male ego to let me do it?!”
A little dumbfounded at first, you recover sufficiently to venture, “But I thought you appreciated it.”
“Well I’d appreciate it a lot more if you treated me like an equal instead of a helpless female.”
Your first reaction is to think to yourself, ‘I’m not sure what’s got into her, but if she really wants to take out the garbage…’ But then the cumulative effect of her belligerence starts to raise your hackles. Is there nothing sacred? Can’t a fella take out the family garbage without going to the anti-discrimination tribunal? My dad always took out the garbage; and his father before him; and his father before him.
Your knuckles are white around the torch as you storm outside, calling back over your shoulder, “I suppose I’m just old-fashioned, but I think garbage is man’s work!”
She slams the door after you.
* * * * * * *
There is little doubt that the women’s ordination issue has been detrimental not only to Evangelicalism, but also to the cause of the gospel in our community. Divisions within congregations and denominations, enormous expenditures of time and energy that could have gone to gospel work, internal faction fighting, the ugly face of power politics, appeals to the secular media–we have watched in sadness while all this has happened.
For Evangelicalism it has been a disaster. For possibly the first time, an issue of church life has divided us so deeply that we have aligned ourselves with different elements of the opposition. Some side with Tractarians, and others with theological Liberals. It is sad to see the heat that has been generated between Evangelicals, and sadder still that our opponents have been afforded such an opportunity to attack us. “What sort of ‘sufficient authority’ is the Bible”, they might well argue, “if you can’t agree on what it says?’ We have let down the cause of Biblical Christianity very seriously indeed.
Why Divisions?
Evangelicals must step back from the ordination debate to look at the more important question of why divisions have arisen amongst themselves. While we remain caught in crusading for our particular stand on ordination, we will have insufficient time and energy to address this crucial question. Hard though it may be for some to accept, there are more important things in life than the ordination of women to the priesthood, the survival and growth of Evangelical belief being one such issue.
Why are we divided? How can we be reconciled? And what would such a reconciliation do for the ordination of women?
For many, the point of division has been the Bible. Some see it as a question of interpretation. They claim to uphold the authority of the Scriptures, but argue that it has been misinterpreted down the centuries. It should now be rightly interpreted so as to allow, or even command, the ordination of women.
Others see it as a question of the authority of Scripture. They are not persuaded by the ‘new hermeneutic’, which they see as a means of sidestepping the Bible when it teaches a socially unacceptable idea. They see the women’s ordination movement as an extension of the pagan breakdown of the family, and regard the Biblical justification of this as untenable.
Thus, the Scriptures–that great unifying authority of Evangelicals down the ages–are the very point of our division. Each side, convinced of the truth of their stance, has no intention of giving in. A war of attrition seems the only outcome. For the Liberal, who has never believed in the sole authority of Scripture, the whole episode has been a field day.
But is this question of the interpretation and authority of Scripture the genuine reason for our division? Has Bible reading alone lead Evangelicals to two different opinions on the nature of gospel ministry? Has our deep and sad division resulted purely from searching the Scriptures in order to live in obedience to them?
Perhaps there is a more deep-seated reason for our division. Perhaps we need to question the whole nature of ordination, rather than the gender of the ordinand. Many people have made this point, but it has not greatly affected the debate. Evangelicals have not sorted out what they mean by ‘ordination’ and have not questioned our existing structures from a Biblical perspective. We find ourselves arguing bitterly about a power structure that has little or no New Testament warrant. Our failure may not lie in our attitude to the Bible, so much as in our compromise and double-mindedness over the whole subject of ordination. Before we engage in the next round of synodical argument, counterargument, lobbying voting and legal challenge, are we ready to face this issue?
Power without Glory
Within most denominations, and the Anglican Church particularly, the ways of this world have been allowed to steadily undermine the ‘servant’ character of Christian ministry. Jesus harangued the Pharisaic rabbis for their love of long flowing robes, and grandiose titles and the seats of honour in synagogues. They revelled in the power and status associated with their position. By contrast, the symbols of status, power and authority were not to be the pattern of ministry for the followers of Jesus.
Yet within Anglicanism there has developed exactly this structure of power, with all its symbols and titles. In nearly every Anglican Church building in Australia, there is a special chair set aside for the Bishop, and a seat of honour for the Rector (irrespective of his role in conducting a particular meeting). There are robes for ministers to wear both in and outside church meetings, most of them being scarves and overcoats (which are completely inappropriate to our cultural context, not to mention our climate). Other robes, such as hoods, are used to indicate the minister’s authority, and others make symbolic reference to the kind of mediatorial priesthood that Anglicanism rejected at the Reformation.
Then there are the titles that are used to indicate one’s place in the Anglican hierarchy. Though revered by few, most clergy are called Reverend, some Very Reverend, others Right Reverend, and some even Most Reverend. We have Venerables and Canons, not to mention Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Vicars, Rectors, Curates, Archdeacons, Lay Readers, Churchwardens, and Parish Councillors.
These titles delineate our place in the pecking order–the higher up we are, the further back we walk in ecclesiastical parades. Worse than this, for the congregation member and the outsider they create a perception of hierarchy, of rule and lordly authority.
Most of these titles have no Biblical origin, and even those that do come from the Bible have been considerably distorted from their original use. Bishops, for instance, in the New Testament are equivalent to the presbyters/elders. Nowadays, the bishops are more like deacons–they administer the affairs of denominational life, care for widows and orphans, and allow those engaged in the ministry of the word and sacraments to get on with their task (see Acts 6). But in so doing they are somehow seen to be at the top of the ecclesiastical tree!
Likewise, ‘priest’ in the Bible most often refers to the Old Testament intermediaries between God and Israel. Jesus has made this priesthood redundant and inappropriate–he is our one great High Priest who has made a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, mediating complete salvation for his people. And yet we persist in the confusing practice of calling our pastors priests.
These manifold symbols of status and authority are not empty–they represent a reality that is deep-seated. The almost supreme power of the Rector in his parish has stifled many a long-suffering congregation, to the detriment of gospel ministry. The failure of our structures to allow the ‘elders’ of the congregation to exercise leadership and ministry has been one of the great failures of Anglicanism. The use and abuse of power within the episcopal administration has at times been scandalous, and usually operates as a disincentive to the preaching of the gospel at the grass roots. Constant haggling over power in synodical government, which reduces our fellowship to legal enactment, has been a sad reflection of Anglicanism’s departure from true Christian fellowship.
Calcified Practice
If nothing else, Evangelicalism stands for a life lived in close accordance with the word of God. Our problem with the women’s ordination issue stems from a failure to live by that word. Instead of striving for constant reformation of the church by the word of God we have accepted worldly practices thoroughly inconsistent with God’s word.
In the first instance, many of these practices were not in themselves wrong. They concerned neutral things, such as the clothes that a clergyman may or may not wear. Some of our forefathers saw that these would lead to error; others regarded them as matters of Christian liberty and decided to leave them in place.
However, the neutral practices of one age become the essential practices of another. If wearing a clerical collar is nothing more than a formality to show that a man is sober in his attire, there can be little objection to it. When it becomes an essential part of his ministerial equipment so that he can only minister effectively and authoritatively when he has the collar on, it has become calcified.
Once fixed in this fashion, the neutral practice has become wrong. It is wrong because we are now inflexible, unable to be all things to all men, and incapable of adapting to a different age, society and climate. If it is no longer a matter of liberty, but a matter of law, then it has become an addition to the gospel–it must be wrong.
Similarly, there is nothing wrong with leaving a seat aside for the man who is leading the congregational meeting. But when he and only he can sit in it (even when he is not leading the meeting), and when it is ornately carved, and placed in a position of pride and prominence–then he has fallen into the error of the Pharisees and needs to be dethroned.
Evangelicals have not continued to fight the calcification of our denominational practices. They have come to accept the patterns of a previous generation as being God-given, placing their trust in the rules and ordinances of the Anglican Church rather than in the word of God. We should have sought to continually change the Anglican Church by the word of God, rather than compromise ourselves in the hope of keeping our place in the system.
That compromise with error has now found us out. Instead of reforming our doctrine and practice of ordination we have come to accept that it is right for a clergyman to have authority and power with all its accompanying symbols. Having accepted a false view of power and leadership in church life, we find ourselves compromised when the women ask for a piece of the action. To deny women authority, status and power (with all its symbols) is to deny them true acceptance within the congregation, for that is how we have set up the system. They hear it said that their contribution is of no real value or importance, since the door to recognition, power and influence is firmly closed to them. That is not what Evangelicals believe they are saying, but their failure to challenge the existing power structures of the Anglican Church means that it is tacitly what they are saying.
It is wrong for women to desire power and authority in this way. For it is wrong that men should have such power and authority. We will not solve the issue by giving women this power, nor by leaving it all for the men. We must challenge the ungodly authoritarianism that is rife in our denomination. We need a commission that will honestly examine from a Biblical perspective the whole subject of ordination.
A Calcified Debate
The trench warfare of the First World War was a classic exercise in futility. The synodical number-crunching on women’s ordination is little different. One side may gain a temporary advantage, but neither side is going to shift one iota from its stance. The debate is as calcified as the Anglican Church itself.
Some will always feel that their rights have been denied if we do not ordain women, while others will continue to maintain that women do not have this right. Evangelicals should be questioning what these ‘rights’ are all about. As in World War I we have to keep fighting, in one sense. But there is something absurd about two people fighting for the ‘right’ to put out the garbage. Surely one would be sufficiently loving to allow the other to have the privilege of garbage disposal on that occasion.
Is this really a fight over who has the right to serve? Could the ‘right to serve’ engender such heat and hostility? Or is it really a fight for power?
While we should continue this fight, the cost to the gospel is too high, and the victory is too shallow. The cost is Evangelicalism divided and the spoils of victory are male power and status. Is this what we want? The hard way forward is to re-evaluate our whole ministry, for Evangelicals to get together again and challenge the Anglican perception of hierarchy and power. We must bring our denomination back under the authority of the word of God, liberating laymen to the ministry God would have them conduct, giving recognition to all manner of service, and encouraging the full diversity of gifts that Christ has bestowed on his church.
The real challenge for Evangelicals is to break away from ministerial power. We should not be fighting each other over whether women can celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but fighting in unity that godly laymen (whether male or female) should be encouraged to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
