J-scribe

The conservative Anglican diocese of Sydney is the major power-wielder in Australian Anglicanism and the biggest purse, but it lost an important theological battle this week with the Church hierarchy approving the ordination of women bishops.

The Sydney diocese had argued that women should be prohibited from ordination as bishops because they didn’t fit the definition of a person as defined by the Church’s constitution. Perplexed? So was I.

The constitution stipulates that a bishop must be a baptised person who is at least 30 and in Priest’s orders. That sounds like an undeniably unisex approach, but the Sydney diocese – led by Archbishop, Peter Jensen – argued that the word person, in this context, meant men and was not intended to reference women.

This narrow-minded, fundamentalist approach is consistent with the furious fight mounted by the diocese over a decade ago against the ordination of women as priests in the Anglican Church. The diocese lost the war but continues the battle, refusing at the local level to ordain or employ women priests.

The conservatives rely on New Testament verses interpreted as ranking men above women – socially, relationally and religiously. The main verse relied upon is this one from Ephesians: “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord….For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church…” (Eph 5:22-23) But the counter argument is more essential - from Genesis: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Gen 1:27) The Bible also indicates the equality of men and women in the context of non-racialism and liberation from slavery: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28) A truly liberating and socially progressive verse if ever there was one!

Interpreting scripture is a contentious business and I’m not a theologian, but I strongly agree with the supporters of women’s ordination who argue that these verses need to be understood in context – both textually and culturally. Indeed the same people who argue against women’s ordination cite such arguments to justify the non-literal interpretation of other Biblical verses – like the ones requiring women to cover or shave their heads in church and in prayer or those regarding the preparation of foodstuffs and capital punishment. It’s also relevant that these fundamentalists from the Sydney diocese would point to Islamic extremism as evidence of the problems with literal interpretation of sacred texts.

And, it's worth noting that fundamentalist, literal interpretations of scripture have been historically used to justify the continuation of slavery, racial segregation, apartheid, the activities of the Ku Klux Clan, domestic violence, child sex assault and myriad other examples of man’s inhumanity to man.

At a personal level, as a former member of the Anglican Church in the Sydney diocese, I’m celebrating the decision on behalf of women who’ve been alienated, humiliated and emotionally abused by those in their Church who have sought to devalue them.

I left the institutional Church after one too many arguments about the role of women with a misogynist parish minister. The last straw was his assertion to a friend, who’d been ordained as a Salvation Army Minister, that she could not have been ‘called’ by God because she was a woman. I publicly challenged his assertion, asking if he thought the ‘Devil did it’. I can still see the anger welling up in his eyes. There were women – talented, intelligent, educated, professional women - in tears on the lawn outside the church that day and I knew it was time to leave.

So, I hope this decision to finally recognise the authority of women at the highest level of the Anglican Church brings some healing to the women I walked with before I walked away.

There’s fear within the Anglican Church that the decision will lead to a formal split with the Sydney diocese leaving the fold. Their loss, you might say. However, such a decision would be an extremely short-sighted measure as the Church struggles to find relevancy in the 21st century and ‘bums on seats’ are falling weekly.

It’s not too late for reform but it’s too late to turn back the clock.    [read more]