Article
- Date:
- Sunday 18th July 2010
Year C, The Seventh Sunday after Trinity - Place:
- Holy Trinity, Hurstpierpoint
- Service:
- Parish Eucharist
- Readings:
- Genesis 18:1-10
Luke 10:38-42
In today's Old Testament Reading and Gospel we have, in spite of appearances, three rather different women: Sarah, wife of a rich nomad, whose primary purpose as a child bearer is now well beyond her, is feisty, argumentative and deeply ironical; Martha, who seems to have renounced the child bearing in favour of running a sibling household, might be somewhat grumpy but she's also hard working and resourceful; and Mary who "takes the better part" as a contemplative. And so, for all the apparent similarity in their cultural milieu, they are actually highly individual, with different outlooks and vocations.
As we look back across the centuries, we must be careful not to 'write across' stereotypes of their vocations; and a quick look at women in the Bible will show us why. The President of the United States, for example, might not want to remember that Barak, in the Book of Judges, was such a wimp that he wouldn't go out to fight unless the Judge Deborah went with him; and I don't suppose many in today's church would want to be too fulsome in praise of Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho, although her heroism, not her profession, that is the point; and if you look at the genealogy of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew, you will see that it is punctuated by three other really remarkable women: Ruth, the Moabites who stayed faithful, Bathsheba who secured the Kingdom for Solomon when David was in his dotage and, of course, Mary, the mother of Jesus.
But, after Mary, perhaps the most remarkable symbolic figure in the New Testament is her namesake of Magdala who first saw our risen Lord, which brings us, perhaps not so elegantly as you or I would like, to the decision last week of the General Synod at York to send legislation on the ministry of women in our Church to the Dioceses for consultation.
The two primary objections to the ministry of women are, on the conservative evangelical side, that they cannot exercise headship in the church as this is foundationally male and, on the traditionalist catholic side, certainty that the sacramental acts of women are valid. Those who support these claims will have ample opportunity to state their case and I will not undertake the customary Church of England office of being fairer to those who disagree with me than to my own case.
I want us, as a starting point, to think about four fundamental questions which arise from the debate on women's ministry.
- First, as those opposed to women's ministry say that what they are told by God over-rides secular law, what are the criteria which justify us as Christians breaking or seeking to be exempt from secular law? We might say to our secular leaders: "God says that I cannot adhere to this law" but what limits would we place on this? What if God said to a devout Christian that no other religion should be practised in the United Kingdom? Is: "God says" enough? There is a Christian tradition that law breaking should be costly, so how far should we expect any exemption from the law to be painless?
- Secondly, is there any such thing as 'headship' in the Christian Church in general and the Church of England in particular? When we say that 1 Peter speaks of "Royal Priesthood" of all believers, what does that mean? What kind of 'headship' is an individual exercising when she or he presides at the Eucharist, preaches or simply provides moral guidance? In other words, what is the precise characteristic of male 'headship' that is fundamental?
- Thirdly, and related to the second point, what do we mean when we say that a priest consecrates the bread and wine? Referring back to 1 Peter's formulation of the "Royal priesthood" we need to ask whether the President, or Priest, stands at the altar on behalf of the people to offer gifts of bread and wine which the Holy Spirit (in the Epiclesis) blesses, so that Jesus is truly with us in them. What is it in the endowment of the Spirit, that sets the ordained Priest or Bishop apart from ordained Deacons and lay ministers? On what grounds can a woman, even a lay woman, invoke the Holy Spirit in Baptism but not in the Eucharist or Confirmation? So there is a distinction of degree as well as gender to consider.
- Fourthly, and most importantly, what is the basic principle of Christian solidarity? If we take a superficial view of "love your neighbour as yourself", we are in danger of reaching the sloppy conclusion that all we have to do is to "do as you would be done by". But if the debate on women's ministry has taught me anything, it is that this is a complete misunderstanding of Jesus. These passages do not mean: treat your neighbour in precisely the way you would want to be treated. On that basis, because you want a new garden shed, all your neighbours should have one. On that basis, if you believe that women should not be ministers of the Church, you wish for them what you believe yourself. What Jesus is saying is not that we should wish for our neighbours what we wish for ourselves - although that is a good starting point and a check against doing to others what will benefit ourself - but that we should love them with the same intensity with which we love ourselves. "Do as you would be done by" is not enough; as Christians we have to advocate the much tougher: "Do as each would be done by." Regardless of our personal opinions, our status and our power, the core of Christianity is that we must respect the bilateral relationship between God and person. I stress this because the fundamental proposition of those against women's ministry is: "God tells me that the ministry of women is not valid"; but that is not what God appears to be telling women. So the underlying question is this: under what circumstances can a person in a leadership position say that a personal calling to ministry, which she or he affirms, is not valid? You might want to say that all of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus were men; I might want to say that they were all Jews but it doesn't stop Gentiles presiding at the Eucharist. Paul is careful in 1 Corinthians 12, 14 to warn against the individual, idiosyncratic exercise of spiritual gifts; but he never says that he has some way of knowing who has them and who does not. Should not Christianity, as advocated by Paul, be built on trust, not law?
Summing up, we might finally want to ask ourselves whether the problem that some people have with the ministry of women arises because of their perception that priesthood carries power; it would be very difficult to deny that in the case of the doctrine of "male headship" that this is true and there is something of it in the idea that the Priest, rather than the Holy Spirit, is the unique means of consecration. Would there, I wonder, be such a fuss if the priestly ministry was defined in terms of humble service that looked more like the face of Christ than the Emperor Constantine?
This is only the start of our duty to consider our response to the draft legislation but, in the meantime, we might reflect on the salience of women in Scripture in spite of the cultural odds stacked against them.