Maltby, Women Bishops and the Twisting of Words
Judith Maltby, the Chaplain of Corpus Christi College in Oxford, has written a piece for the Guardian’s Comment is Free section on their web. In it she unfortunately demonstrates a lack of real engagement with the theological objections of those who oppose women’s ordination and consecration and indeed shows how she simply won’t engage with the reality of what people actually say, instead choosing to judge upon what she believes they mean.
Here’s the text with my comments interspersed:
When I was ordained a deacon in 1992, a few months before the historic vote on women priests, I was like most people shortly to be ordained: overly anxious and overly serious. Added to that I had recently finished my doctorate on an aspect of the English Reformation. This meant, unlike most Anglican ordinands, I had actually read the 39 Articles to which one must assent before being ordained in the Church of England. I had scruples. I told my diocesan bishop that although most of the thirty-nine were fine, one or two were a real problem. Article 37 for example, endorses capital punishment, a position I find incompatible with the Christian gospel – a fact that seems to have been overlooked (or has it?) by those who wish to impose the Articles as a touchstone of orthodoxy and morality on the whole of the Anglican Communion. I received from my bishop just the right response for the occasion: he told me that by ‘assent’, I was saying ‘Yes bishop, those are the 39 Articles’. His pastoral, intelligent and humane response to my somewhat precious scrupling carried me through the day.
For one who has completed a doctorate on the 39 Articles, Maltby shows an extraordinary laxity of approach to the actual text of those Articles. Here is the original text of Article 37 :
The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King’s Majesty the chief government, by which Titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers.
The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.
The Laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death, for heinous and grievous offences.
It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.
Notice the exact wording of that article. "The Laws of the Realm *may* punish men with death…" For those who are familiar with leading worship, we get very used to the difference between "may" and "shall". The "may" here indicates that such a position is not a command upon Christians but rather an understanding that some may come to the conclusion that capital punishment is in certain circumstances justifiable. And yes, Maltby is writing for a secular audience, but note how she doesn’t at any time attempt to justify her position on the subject from Scripture. Rather she uses it as an example of her willful dissemblance at her ordination when asked to assent to and affirm the 39 Articles, a perjury that she seems to implicate the Diocesan bishop as being complicit with.
Imagine folks if I had taken that attitude upon ordination to the first five articles?
The draft legislation to consecrate women as bishops published on Mondayand the supporting documentation makes a great deal of Anglicanism‘s gift for holding together diverse, at times, contradictory points of conviction in a wider context of pastoral common sense. Often derided by others for this as the fudge producers extraordinaire of Christianity, we Anglicans tend to make a virtue of it and if it makes us less prone to witch-hunts and the gleeful doctrinal purges of the purity police, I’m all for it. Human beings, let alone God, are rather complicated.
Anglicans disagree about more things than I could live long enough to enumerate: how is Christ present in the Eucharist, if at all; does Baptism make people regenerate or does it anticipate later conversion; what does it actually mean to say that the Bible is the Word of God; is the death of Jesus redemptive because he took punishment which should have been ours or through his death, God shows the profundity of the divine identification and commitment to the human race; is ordination ontological or merely the authorizing an individual to perform a set of ecclesiastical functions ndash; oh and can women, as well as men, be priests and bishops? Yes we disagree about that too as well as not agreeing just what a priest or bishop actually is in the first place. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the things over which Anglicans differ.
I just want to comment at this point that though Maltby seems to lay out here a position that Anglicanism allows itself to be open a number of different theological interpretations, only two paragraphs previously she has presented a position on capital punishment that indicates that in her mind it is *not* acceptable to disagree with the position that capital punishment is ungodly. It appears that less than half way through her essay she is already wrapping herself up in a web of authoritarian confusion.
In the midst of all this merry muddle, what we have never done as a church until the Act of Synod in 1993, is to deal with differing convictions by setting up a class of bishop to give pastoral care to one group based solely on their views on one issue. The draft legislation carries on this idea with its proposal of ‘complementary’ bishops to serve the minority in the church unhappy about women bishops. Not only would these bishops be men, they would have to be men untainted by sacramental association with women clergy – please understand: just being a bloke isn’t good enough, the bloke must be pure. I get angry emails from time to time for describing this as a theology of taint, but I honestly can’t think of a more candid description for this position.
What Maltby neglects to tell her readers at this point however is that that votes in 1993 introduced women priests on the understanding that the doctrinal discernment in this area was not yet complete and that the Church of England, as part of the wider catholic church, was in a period of reception as regards this innovation. That meant that the Act of Synod and accompanying documentation explicitly acknowledged that those who objected to the ordination of women on theological grounds did so (and still do so) with integrity and as fully participating members (and clergy) of the Church. There was therefore absolutely no "theology of taint" intended by the provisions for discenting parishes and furthermore, the Synod understood the necessity for such provision.
And it’s worth pointing out here of course that there are plenty of us opposed to women’s ordination who have no issue with male bishops who have ordained women. We have, after all, read Article 26:
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
On with Maltby:
The point is this: I have a very ‘high’ view of the Eucharist – if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me for surely Eucharistic theology is as important as disputes over ordination. But no. From disagreements over the Eucharist, the Bible, even the theological meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we Anglicans feel no need to haul in a complementary bishop.
Not even in the slightest. The Anglican position on the Eucharist from the Articles can be easily seen:
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
It’s very clear that if you believe in transubstantiation and yet assent to the 39 Articles you are perjuring yourself, pure and simple. In the same way, to take a Zwinglian view (that the elements are only ever bread and wine and do not in any sense becomes tools by which we receive from Christ in the Eucharist) is also proscribed by the first paragraph of the Article. So the Anglican position is actually rather clear – what happens at the Lord’s Table is neither simply a memorial nor the magical transformation of the elements into Christ himself, but some other mystery somewhere between these two rejected heresies. Many priests like myself are more than happy with such a position, and for those who believe that doctrine cannot be expressed in such a manner (the denial of what is not true rather than the explicit affirmation of what is true), then they need to take another read of the Athanasian Creed.
So back to Maltby. It’s very clear that the Anglican Church has settled its mind as to what occurs on the Lord’s Table, but furthermore, it has also decided that no provision needs to be made for those who might afterall believe something slightly different to their Bishop in this regard (for example my Bishop might take a position more akin to Calvin, I one more akin to Cranmer or Hooker). It has however decided that since the final discernment as to whether it is correct to ordain women has not been made, it is perfectly acceptable to make provision in this regard for those who object to the 1993 innovations.
It is therefore simply incorrect for Maltby to argue that "if my bishop does not share this view, by the reasoning that gives us complementary bishops, I should be entitled to a bishop who agrees with me". The Articles show very clearly that on the matter of the economics of the Eucharists there are incorrect interpretations and there are correct interpretations (or to be more precise, there are interpretations that are not incorrect). On the matter of women’s ordination however the Synod has clearly argued that there is no one valid correct interpretation (we are in a period of reception) and that therefore allowance can and should be made for those who object to the innovation.
On to the killer paragraph:
Why is that? One is left with the sad conclusion that the draft legislation and its code of practice isn’t really trying to deal with genuine theological difference – the Church of England has that in abundance – it is trying to deal with women. I don’t blame the hard working members of the drafting group for this – this reflects state of the Church of England. Women are the problem, not a gift, which needs a solution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘complementary’ as ‘completing and perfecting’. What, I wonder, could possibly be ‘incomplete’ about a woman in episcopal orders (answers on a post card, please)? Maude Royden, the first Anglican woman to preach in the Church of England in 1919, sparking enormous controversy at the time (as it still would in Sydney), once remarked ironically ‘I was born a woman and I can’t get over it’. The Church of England, it would appear, bereft of any irony, cannot get over it either.
Maltby’s argument descends to the usual position of those who object to the objectors – that they are afterall just misogynists and the provisions being made for them pander to such prejudice. And really, one cannot fail to see why she should resort to such a response, because she doesn’t use Scripture in her argument and the procedural / ecclesiastical objections she raises are simply incorrect. The only way therefore to argue against those who have genuine theological and ecclesiastical objections to women’s ordination and consecration is to allege that our objections are not afterall theological but stem from prejudice. If we can be portrayed as prejudiced and bigotted against a certain group then it becomes much easier to demonise us and dismiss our arguments, not on the basis of good Bible study or reasoned ecclesiology but simply because our viewpoint is not acceptable in the enlightened 21st Century.
Prejudice is, afterall, a bad thing.
One more thought. Back in 2003, whilst studying at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford in preparation for ordination, I was asked whether I would be prepared to act as a link point to the Christian Union in Corpus Christi college. The idea of the link was that I would be someone with a bit more experience and wisdom (?) than the undergraduates running the college CU, someone to pray with and perhaps run ideas past, not to run the CU for them but someone just to refer to for advice and counsel. As a matter of courtesy I emailed the chaplain of the college and asked whether she would be comfortable with the arrangement. The chaplain responded and quite bluntly refused me any permission to act in any pastoral manner with the undergraduates in question. I offered to meet with her so she could get to know me and perhaps realise that I wasn’t the chapel burning, icon smashing, authority ignoring puritan thug that she seemed to believe I was (I didn’t of course use that language – I suggested a nice cup of tea to get to know each other). She refused. I believe the lady in question is still in position.
Prejudice, as I’ve said before, is a bad thing.
Peter, you, and any one who objects to the ordination of women to the priesthood (and now the episcopate) completely fail to understand what ministerial priesthood in Christ’s church is. Ministerial Priesthood is about sharing in the eternal priesthood of Jesus Christ. We are bound into that by virtue of our baptism. The Church makes no distinction between men and women in terms of baptism, and therefore has absolutely no right to make any distinction about ministerial priesthood by virtue of gender. To make such a distinction IS simply to be prejudiced I’m afraid and thank God the C of E had the guts in 1992 to begin to do away with it.
And reception is not about discerning if it was the right thing to do. The C of E was convinced it was the right thing to do and that it was offering a gift to the whole Church by taking this step; the process of reception is simply the process by which the Church receives this gift.
Ohh.. and one more thought. Would it be ok if I, a liberal catholic priest of more than 20 years offered some alternative pastoral oversight to some of the groups in your congregation so that they get alternative views presented to them and thus have some proper understanding of liberal theology?
Dear Peter and Sound,
1. ‘Ministerial priesthood’? Nope, that’s not what a priest (a contraction of ‘presbyter’) is tapping into. He’s not offering sacrifices on behalf of his congregation. Christ has done all that. All Christians share a common priesthood of offering ourselves in Christ’s service (Rom 12:1). This can also be extended to prayer but prayer from a presbyter carries no more clout with God than from any other Christian.
2. Rather some presbyters are set aside particularly to develop a thorough knowledge of the word of God that it may be taught to His people and the watching world (Acts 6).
3. And the chaplain (note, chaplain) of a college is not parallel to a presbyter in a church. Students have not put themselves under the chaplain’s authority as they would have to do in a presbyter in a church. (We no longer live in days of compulsory attendance at college chapel. If we did I would have dropped out part way through my degree!) Thus Peter’s approach was very much a courtesy call.
4. By the way, did you act as a ‘link’ Peter?
Nonconformingly yours,
John Foxe.
Hi John,
Out of courtesy to Maltby I did not pursue that which I had been asked to do. I’m not sure today I would take the same line.
Sound,
I think JF in his point #2 begins to explore the key difference between clergy and laity. We are all called to minister, all part of a royal priesthood, yet some of us are called to particular ministries and particular aspects of that priesthood. Unless you believe that absolutely anybody who has ever been baptised (for example Joe Bloggs who got baptised 30 years ago and had never darkened the door of a church since) should be allowed to do everything in church then your position is not credible.
We’re then left with the position that some tasks require more than simply baptism, that people are specifcally called to them, and if the Bible (or tradition) says that only men are called to certain things, then who am I to argue with God.
As for your last request, by all means apply for the appropriate post next time there’s a vacancy. If the parish want you and the Bishop is happy with you then you have the job!!
Peter.. you conveniently ignore the theology of my first point and miss the parallel in the second. Of course there are different ministries. Even priests exercise very different ministries to each other. But the basis of all ministry is a relationship with christ through baptism, not gender. And we don’t make distinctions in baptism. Therefore…..
Anyway..thank goodness the C of E offered this gift to the whole church. We now ordain more women than men. In 20 years time half the C of E episcopate will be female and that can only be good news for the fullness of Christ in the life of the Church.   Â
And I’m not applying for any post. I’m offering my ministry freely….the idea of the link is that I would be someone with a bit more experience and wisdom (?) than the curate running various groups, someone to pray with and perhaps run ideas past, not to run the groups for you but someone just to refer to for advice and counsel. (Does this last sentence ring any bells?)
Sound,
I’m not ignoring your first point, I’m simply pointing out to you that you don’t *actually* mean what you wrote, otherwise you would have absolutely no problem in dragging someone off the street with no church background whatsoever but who had been baptised as a baby to do your Communion. If you accept that you *wouldn’t” do that then the rest of your argument falls apart because you have accepted that not all who are baptised are equal in what they are called to do.
As for your second suggestion, if anybody in my congregation asks me for exactly such a counsel and asks for it from you, I’m more than happy for them to contact you. The souls of those who belong to Corpus Christi College, Oxford Christ Church Ware are not my possessions to keep and control.
Ahh.. Peter, I see you don’t actually read very well. What I mean is exactly what I say. The ministry of all people is related to the ministry of the priesthood of Jesus Christ by virtue of their baptism, not by virtue of their gender.Â
Clearly anyone who exercises some ministry needs selection, discernment and training to exercise it, but I asssumed you would be bright enough to take that as read….
But the theological point remains; the selection and discernment is because they have a baptism, not because they have a particular set of genitals….Â
You also miss the point of my second suggestion; I’m offering the counsel regardless of whether you or anybody else wants it, in the same way your ministry was offered to Judith Maltby and members in her pastoral care whether she wanted it or not. I’ve been asked to offer it by a liberal bishop I know. I note you are not jumping up and down to accept it, but managed to reply to John as follows: Out of courtesy to Maltby I did not pursue that which I had been asked to do. I’m not sure today I would take the same line. I feel the same really….I’m worried about the souls of your congregation and want to be sure they get the real good news of the Gospel….Â
 Â
Oh..and the bible and tradition are not clear about ordination as we have it in the C of E…BUT the tradition of the C of E is now absolutely clear that we do allow women to be priests, so who are you to differ from the tradition you find yourself in? Â
The tradition of the CofE is *not* clear on women priests, unless you are suggesting that the period of reception is now over?
See my earlier point about reception….if you aren’t ready to receive the gift, then that’s fine.. we will wait until you are. But the Archbishop has made it clear the C of E is NOT re-opening any debate about women priests; therefore our tradition is very clear – after considering scripture carefully, and debating the theology of it for about 30 years and concluding there were no theological objections at all,  we decided to go ahead.Â
There *are* churches that don’t open the ministry of priesthood to women if you prefer that option….  but they have an even more peculiar theology of ministry….we didn’t have a Reformation for nothing. Â
Dear Sound,
of course the fallacy in your argument is that even if baptism is the basis for all ministry, it isn’t the sole factor to take into account. It may be necessary, but it isn’t sufficient.
Regards,
The Foxe
Dear John Foxe
Thanks for helping along my point. I’ve never said it is the only factor or sufficient on its own. The C of E has quite clear criteria for selection for ministry – but note that not one of them has to do with the type of genitals you have. But baptism is still the basis for all of them. All ministry shares in the minsitry of Jesus Christ. And we *can* share in that (and note I say *can* and not *do*) for one simple reason – we share in Christ through our baptism. Clearly some people don’t bother to exercise their baptismal promises and privileges, and clearly not everyone is called to exercise a particular ministry. But the only reason they can in the first place is because they are baptised, and we make no distinction about baptism based on gender. Â
The more you and Peter argue the more you look like you think women are less in Christ than men are…Â maybe you’d feel happier in Rome? Â
Dear Sound,
the CofE may well have other criteria that neglect what scripture says about gender and ministerial functions. That certainly doesn’t lead me to conclude the CofE has got it right nor that women share less in union with Christ than men. But then you seem to be determining the worth of a woman by what she does rather than what she is.
As for the whore of Babylon surely you’ve descended the ecclesiological equivalent of Godwin’s Law?
Apoplectically yours,
Foxe with teeth.
Sound,
I think your failure to respect that the conservative argument about women’s ordination or leadership has nothing to do with them being “less in Christ” but more to do with them being “different in Christ” is telling. I may not agree with Inclusive Church or WATCH, but at least I do them the courtesy of understanding where they are coming from and engaging with what they actually believe, not a caricature or down right dissemblance of their position.
Peter, I think you have absolutely NO respect for WATCH or Inclusive Church, and you’ve made that plain in post after post or rude snide remark. You ever refer to the bIshop of Leicester as a ‘muppet’. Is that respectful, do you think?  Your post above here, when you say that  “if the Bible (or tradition) says that only men are called to certain things, then who am I to argue with God” makes it plain that you don’t understand at all what the C of E did in 1992. That IS the tradition that you now operate in. Every diocese ordains women to the priesthood. Or haven’t you noticed?
And if you explore my arguments re Baptism carefully, you will see that it is exactly the argument the Archbishop uses. It’s sound theology….
Sound,
The Bishop of Leicester *is* a muppet if on live TV he denies one of the 39 Articles and key aspects of the Christian faith. As for Watch and Inclusive Church, I only ever respond to what they actually say and write rather than caricatures of their position.
I think you are glossing over certain aspects of the 1992 vote. It was abundantly clear at the time that the vote to ordain women was not the end of the matter and that passing the Act of Synod we had entered into a period of reception. The fact that every diocese ordains women doesn’t in any way negate that period of reception. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently stated that he didn’t think that as a church we would go back on the 1992 vote. He did not state that that was now official policy. Until Synod decides that the period of reception that it acknowledged being in place is over, then it is not over.
Let’s be absolutely clear what the Archbishop said shall we? I quote from his website:
“From the very beginning of this issue I have been a supporter of the ordination of women and have not doubted the rightness of that decision or the blessings it has brought. It has been a difficult road for the Church and the cost of that decision has been a heavy one and that has been a test.
“I made it clear in the interview with the Catholic Herald – and will continue to do so – that I see no theological justification for any revisiting of this question and indicated in the interview three times that I had no wish to reopen it, whatever technical possibilities might theoretically exist.”
“The presentation of this to mean anything else is wilful misinterpretation. My convictions mean that I feel nothing less than full support for the decision the Church of England made in 1992 and appreciation of the priesthood exercised ”
Looks like ‘policy’ to me….
And on ‘reception’, even the Fif ‘comic’ New Directions had to acknowledge that reception is not just about the C of E deciding whether or not it did the right thing.  I quote again:
 * Reception is a permanent feature of the life of the Church. As the Spirit-filled Body of Christ, the Church is continually developing its fundamental appropriation of the apostolic faith in order to engage with new knowledge, fresh insights, and changes in the society within which it pursues its mission. Reception is thus related on the one hand to apostolic continuity and on the other to the inculturation of the faith. Reception is not a political device but an ecclesiological reality. The process of the reception of the ordination of women should, therefore, be related to ecclesiological principles, especially those enshrined in the four credal notes or attributes of the Christian Church: one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
* Reception is not the concern of a single church or communion but should be seen in a fully ecumenical context. Reception is a matter for the whole Church, in which gifts and insights, vision and wisdom can be shared. All Christians share in the sensus fidei which shapes the process of reception. While new expressions of the faith are being tested, the interaction of differing, even opposing points of view plays an essential part. The decisions of the Church of England with regard to the ordination of women in a divided universal Church presuppose that an ecumenical process of reception is required. This wider context suggests that not only boldness but restraint may be called for. The ultimate context of reception is the reunion of the Christian Church, which is currently divided on a number of beliefs and practices.
There is, as Rowan has made clear, absolutely no chance that we will re-visit a decision that has already been taken after very clear research and careful debate. There is simply the hope that the whole Church will receive what we have given as a gift…. Â
Nope Sound, the Archbishop is fastidious in his use of language so we can see exactly what he does and doesn’t say. He says, “I see no theological justification for any revisiting of this question and indicated in the interview three times that I had no wish to reopen it, whatever technical possibilities might theoretically exist.”
Note the “I”. He is speaking in his personal role as AB, and is deliberately not using the language of “we”. Unless you believe that the AB can simply change an Act of Synod by saying it’s now all different, then you can see that he is raising the theoretical possibility that we could rescind the Act of Synod, but that he personally would not be in favour of doing that. If there is still a possibility to revoke the original Act of Synod then the period of reception is not yet closed.
Sadly Peter you seem to be deluding yourself. The C of E for the last two years has ordained more of us women than men. All the training institutions (even Mirfield) now  train women as Priests, and as has been pointed out to you, they are ordained in every diocese. They clearly won’t be any going back. The Archbishop does indeed refer to theoretical possibilities, but makes it clear these debates are not going to be re-opened. And he is not speaking ‘personally’ – he is speaking as Archbishop of Canterbury!  I am very glad I am not in your deanery and have found the gracious support of many many male colleagues, with only a tiny number who have your spirit of negativity…. we pray for you. Â
Sadly, yet again, we see here the intolerant, militant and ungenerous view of the ill named 'liberal' wing of the church. It doesn't matter how many hold a certain position, it is a valid position to be against the ordination of women priests and it is valid to be in favour of it. Please show a little more love for your brother, and Sound, I'm speaking to you too. There's much we don't understand, but let's seek God for the answers, not just a rubber stamp to our own ideas.
Estelle,
The issue was whether the period of reception was over. It matters not a bit whether the Archbishop does or doesn’t want to repeal the Act of Synod, the simple fact of the matter is that Synod has not yet declared that the period of reception is over and therefore the period of reception is not over.
As for your slurs of misogyny, I suggest that you contact the three stipended female clergy in our Deanery, one of whom is the Rural Dean, and ask them first what they think of me as a colleague and my attitude and demeanour towards them before you start making such offensive insinuations. If you need their contact details, use the contact page on this site to ask for them.
I can see from the way you address me here that you are offensive Peter – I don’t need to verify it one way or another ! Â Don’t make offensive insinuations about the priestly ministry of women please…. and before you ask ‘where’, just read what you have written about Judith Maltby…
The issue is actually about whether or not the C of E could change it’s mind  – it clearly can’t – and therefore there is no going back. Reception is not here nor there when there is only tiny theoretical possibility…
I have made absolutely NO “offensive insinuations about the priestly ministry of women”. In the article above I have written directly in response to what Maltby wrote and my specific personal experiences with her. I have robustly challenged the content of her piece on the Guardian website and you have a perfect right to respond to any of the points of substance I have made in that challenge. You have chosen not to do so, but rather to simply attack my character. Such ad hominem belittles you.
Furthermore you have insulted me and suggested that my female colleagues in this Deanery would receive no support and only negativity from me. I suggest that if you believe that is so you either:
i) Speak to my female colleagues in my Deanery (I am perfectly willing to give you their contact details – contact me via the contact page) and then report back here what they say about my relationship with them and my support (or lack of it) of their ministry
OR
ii) Apologise in a comment here for insinuating that I am a misogynist.
I am afraid that until you do either of these two things I will not permit any more of your comments on my blog. If you are unwilling to have the courage of your words and actually do one of these two things then the conversation is unfortunately over, but I will simply not have people suggesting I am misogynist without the evidence to support such a claim.
Peter – this does seem to have touched a bit of raw nerve with you.
The irony of your comment re the Archbishop is not lost of course. When conservatives think the Archbishop ought to be speaking out about things, and he doesn’t, they moan that he doesn’t. When he says something quite clearly as the Archbishop, rather than personally as Rowan (as he has done here about women priests) but you don’t happen to agree with him, then you say that only synod can decide things. The Archbishop is of course the president/chair of synod anyway….Â
re: your Rural dean – as a matter of interest, do you receive communion from her when she presides? From your other female deanery colleagues?
The comments in this thread demonstrate why the proposed Code of Practice will be totally useless.Â
One wonders what other divisive issues the Church will think up next to drive people out.
Sound,
The reason why this touches a raw nerve with me is that I’m “up to here” with people implying that the opposition to women’s ordination and consecration as bishops always boils down to misogyny. It does not and for Estelle or anybody else to suggest that it does is simply insulting. It is a theological issue, not a sociological issue.
There are loads of us who are utterly, utterly in favour of women’s ministry, who recognise the gifts and talents given to them by God, who work happily alongside and constantly affirm our female colleagues, who think that in many cases they are better at doing many things then we are and who lament the utter failure of some parts of the church to do the same. What we are not in favour of is *ordaining* women to be the sacramental locus of the worshipping community because we believe with all integrity that there are profound, important theological reasons why we shouldn’t.
You side stepped the crunch question about integrity, so I will put it again… as a matter of interest, *do* you receive communion from your Rural Dean when she presides? From your other female deanery colleagues?
We will go on disagreeing about those ‘profound, important theological’ reasons.  I (and the Archbishop of Canterbury) believe that there are profound important theological reasons why ordination can’t in any way shape or from be linked to gender.Â
And if the next Archbishop disagrees with you Sound, will you fin it annoying when your opponents name drop the AB?.. Seriously, we're supposed to be grown up here, let alone speaking in love for our brothers and sisters.