Why is sexism still tolerated within the Anglican church?
In a hard-hitting article in The Guardian, Theo Hobson takes the Church of England to task for its ‘wet clerics’ and their failure to carry through a reformation of the church in relation women. He laments the fact that division and injustice are being perpetuated because of liberal woolly-mindedness.
In 1992 the church finally agreed to ordain women but allowed those who disagreed and who wished to teach against this to keep their jobs. In 2005 the church agreed that women could, in theory, become bishops and finally break through one glass ceiling so firmly trodden on by men. However, in a recent report, the church is still arguing that the toleration of dissent should still be encouraged. As Hobson argues:
Imagine if Parliament had voted for female suffrage, but also allowed conservatives who disagreed with the development to form a parallel parliament untainted by women’s votes.
Either it is right to remove the cultural abuse of women by denying them an equal voice and opportunities, or it is not. If it is right to do so, why continue to fudge the issue and promote abuse and the teaching of abuse?
I find myself angry about this failure to reform for at least three reasons. First, as a humanist it grieves me that women in the church are clearly being disenfranchised in some way. Although I have never been an Anglican, when I was a Christian and in church leadership, I remember thinking how my wife (who is much more gifted in lots of ways than I am) and my talented daughter would never be allowed to have the freedom to use their teaching and leadership abilities in the way that I was. Women and the church are suffering because of their underdevelopment.
Secondly, as one who likes to point out gaps between theory and practice, shouldn’t an organisation concerned with morality and compassion to people be concerned about the immorality of the injustice being done to its women? This is an organisation that ought to be at the forefront of those who speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves. It is failing spectacularly.
Thirdly, it’s about the bible. Regular readers of this blog will know that I don’t particularly have much time for the fallilbly human injunctions from ancient civilizations these days. However, people inside the church claim to take these seriously. I am angry because if they claim to take the bible seriously, why aren’t they doing the serious exegesis of the text and showing that far from keeping women in their place (as some mistakenly argue) the bible actually supports the case for female equality.
Although much male imagery for god exists in the bible, god is also described as a mother (Isaiah 49:13-15; 66:13), a pregnant woman (Isaiah 42:14), a midwife (Psalm 22:9). It is difficult to see how the so-called ’silence’ texts which seem to prohibit women teaching and making spiritual judgements affecting men are valid when other passages are taken into account. Joel had predicted that his sons and daughters would prophesy (Joel 2:28-29), and clearly female prophets existed (Exodus 15:20; Judges 4:4; 2 Kings 22:14; Nehemiah 6:14; Isaiah 8:3; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:9). There was also a female judge (Judges 4:4), and Junia an apostle (Romans 16:7). Priscilla was involved in teaching Apollos (Acts 18:26). 1 Corinthians 14:34 seems to be in conflict with verse 29 in the same chapter, where the whole church (not just the men) is called on to evaluate the prophets, and with 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 where Paul is concerned with uncovered female heads during prophecy, not women prophets. In 1 Corinthians 14 the issue is more likely about chattering and interruption than with women teaching. In 2 Timothy 2:2 the word ‘men’ should be translated as ‘people’.
According to the biblical narrative which these people claim to believe and take as their rule book, god chose women to be the first witnesses to the resurrection and gave his son to break down barriers between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, men and women.
There are many things I find outrageous and hard to fathom about religious matters and this most definitely one of them. It astounds me that in this day, when women hold prominent positions in almost every walk of life that there is still this dichotomy in the Church of England. I have never had a wish to pursue a career (do you call them careers?) in the Church but had I done so I would have been outraged to find this situation. How can this be justified?
It is often the case that women are more likely to have the type of empathic nature that would make them ideal in many religious roles - great listening skills etc. It is certainly not something that men are in general better at. Although I guess it is not the congregation that is thought of, but the role of serving God?
It is amazing that even in the UK there are still these archaic sexist traditions - the other one that gets my goat is the rules of succession for the Royal Family, an issue which surely would have been addressed if Prince Charles had had daughters.
Fortunately I am too logical to either want to join the Church or to wish to marry a member of the Royal Family!!
Great piece.
Reluctant Blogger
Fortunately I am too logical to either want to join the Church or to wish to marry a member of the Royal Family!!
Phew! That’s a relief!
In the Mennonite church, we feel it is a duty to raise up the low and bring down the high, to exalt the poor, the oppressed, the mentally or physically challenged, the segregated, the vulnerable, etc. For instance, we spent a year as a community coming together and putting together structures and rules and environments that would protect, support, nurture, and empower our children…so that there would never be opportunity for anything like abuse, neglect, etc. Even the littlest of things, like my own prayer formula, have been altered in such a way. I used to pray like this: God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob…” Now I pray like this, “God of Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel…” Our lead pastor is a woman as is our associate pastor. For many of our women, female leadership has literally changed their lives by showing them what it means to be Christian, to be a leader, AND to be a woman. And speaking as a male, I can confidently say that when it comes to our associate pastor, no male could replace her—period. The Spirit and Light of God would be blotted out from our community had we followed in the tradition (if not rule) of the segregation of women in much of Christendom.
A very interesting blog. I will have to consult my female friend on this who is about to be ordained into the Church of England in two months time. I know there has been opposition within the Cof E and other denominations but my belief was that the church institution actually accepted women into the church now and could perform all functions after their probation. Do you call it deaconship in the Cof E? I think so.
I know the Anglo-Catholics are very against women holding formal positions within the Church. This has caused as much of a split within some Anglican sectors as the issue of homosexuality.
As far as bible interpretaion goes -by the way, I am impressed but not surprised how vast your knowledge of the scriptures are, I can only conclude one thing. Is this just another example where men have choosen to take what they want from the scriptures and interpret what they wish from it? Historically, in a male dominated society men would not have wished for women to reign along side them in matters of church position and power. They have simply choosen to ignore the scriptural examples you have mentioned.
Women should be equal to men in the church. This institution I thought had emerged from the dark ages. Apparently not entirely so it would seem.