In recent days the Vatican has published a report on the possibility/not of women being ordained deacons. Reuters has a report here. The gist is that women deacons are not possible *for reasons* but further study is encouraged. A bob each way, but not such that women and men aspiring for the Catholic church to permit women to be deacons can expect change anytime in the next decade or century or longer. At least one commentator is furious with the decision.
My interest in the decision is not about the reasons (I simply disagree with any reasons advanced againt the ordination of women. If imaging Christ is critical to sacramental ministry, then Christ is human before he is male; if history is critical, then while evidence is not overwhelming, it is possible to find precedence; if scripture is important, then *Phoebe*; if apostleship is male, then what about Junia, Mary Magdalene.) My interest is about the fact that the report leaves the door slightly ajar to the future, "further study" covering a multitude of possible/eventual reconsiderations. Newman was recently made a doctor of the church and he was keen on *development* of doctrine. I predict change will come but it could be centuries.
The Anglican point here is that if change comes, then the Anglican church (and other churches) have been both the pioneer of change and sometimes the brunt of Catholic critique for being that pioneer. Such critique, incidentally, not being abstract and confined to academic papers, but something an Anglican deacon recently noted as her lived experience: Catholic friends making critical comment about her being ordained. (I hasten to add that, for the most part, I find nearly all Catholic clerical colleagues very, very respectful and honouring of Anglican women clergy in our ecumenical interactions.)
The future is an unknown country. Its boundaries may be porous compared to existing barbed wire borders.
23 comments:
Even though I'm a woman with no leadership ambitions, I'm stricken every time I read stuff like this. Females knocked back yet again and decisions made that sound like men have all the time in the world to consider the matter - while women have to ... wait, and wait. Vast numbers of women support the Church yet they're not represented in the ordained clergy. It's so frustrating! Women are human too but it's easy to feel like women are simply seen as a threat to be kept at bay!
Quotes to illustrate why I feel both "stricken" (and also) like swearing with impatience... offered without further comment:
Reuters 10-Jul-24
An initial, inconclusive session was held last year. On Tuesday, the Vatican released a working document due to inform discussions at a second and final session in October.
"While some local Churches call for women to be admitted to the diaconal ministry, others reiterate their opposition," it said.
Noting that women deacons will not be on the synod's agenda, it said "theological reflection (on the issue) should continue, on an appropriate timescale and in the appropriate ways".
Reuters 07-Dec-25 (the article +Peter linked to)
The commission, in a 7-1 vote, said historical research and theological investigation "excludes the possibility" of allowing women to serve as deacons at this time but recommended further study of the issue.
*
"Love is the solid base for the principle of social equality."
source: https://crisistransition.substack.com/p/heather-cox-richardson-on-americas
*
Martin Luther King 'Letter from Birmingham Jail'
source: https://baptistnews.com/article/on-its-60th-anniversary-letter-from-birmingham-jail-still-speaks/
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King wrote. “Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ‘well timed’ in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation.”
How you describe the Anglican Church vis à vis the Roman Catholic, as both the "pioneer of change" and also "bearing the bring of [church] critique", is how we Quakers feel about a whole range of issues, not least the full inclusion of rainbow members, and the abolition of an ordained, gowned clergy as separate from the priesthood of all believers!
I think the Methodists were also a bit earlier off the mark than the Anglican’s when it comes to women in ministry too : ) - albeit they too were not approved of by the Anglican Church of the time due to unrecognised ordinations but also because of their tendency to preach to the working class and outdoors.
Tricky tricky as all denominations in one way or another fall short of biblical precedents and the generic we have a tendency to defend our own positions - soooo human - which means genuine believers whose main focus is on preaching the gospel do get flack from other quarters of the community of believers . And also I think it makes us unwilling at times to examine our own traditions. A Baptist friend once asked me why only Priests in the Anglican Church can consecrate communion, I didn’t know the answer. Another council of Nicaea?
Yes, the Quakers have always been at the forefront of social change. Off the topic but curious, do you Quakers have a formal introduction and welcome to new members?
The vicar gave me some leaflets about the history and practice of the Anglican Church and there were a few questions and a handshake by Archbishop Brian Davis when I joined the Anglicans in 1992.
I think that's a great question, Jean. Why are only priests allowed to celebrate communion? I've never heard a convincing answer to that so far.
Hi Moya. One becomes a Quaker through becoming (spiritually) "convinced", and then applies to become a formal member of the Religious Society of Friends by writing a letter to the local Meeting's "Clerk". Two elders then visit the applicant at their house to discuss and discern together, then make a recommendation to the meeting. If successful, the new member is welcomed by the local Meeting, usually with a morning training!
* Morning tea! Autocorrect, my bane.
One could also ask why ordination at all?There was laying on of hands for elders in Scripture - maybe that is it?
Interesting Quaker tradition and a wise one it seems. Maybe more like the very early catechumenate?
I wasn’t ‘convinced’ but my husband was a birth and convinced Anglican. I am probably not a convinced Anglican even now but the church has been good to me and for me.
lol Mark I love it morning training sounds harder work than morning tea!!
I think there is a biblical precedent in respect to the Apostles being called by Jesus, people being selected for certain tasks by the meetings of believers, and elders being appointed in different areas as the church grew. The laying on of hands I understand to be related to the transfer of spiritual gifts which is also evident in scripture.
Personally I think there is need for some form of structure in order to stop groups unravelling or say being dominated by the strongest voices, however, not a structure of ‘worth,’ as in we are all equal in this way as Mark often references in the Priesthood of all believers - but structure of chosen spiritual authority, which I think is a bit like what operates in the Anglican Church and Catholic, Methodist, Baptist etc etc… if always inperfectly. The difficulty I think has been often in human organisations some can conflate authority with authoritarian, albeit the Bible indicates those who ‘teach’ needs must be judged by a higher standard.
I like the idea Mark of being spiritually convinced, I am glad I chose not to be confirmed as a youth and waited until I had ‘owned’ my own faith as an adult. Do the quakers have a form of structure hmmm that sounds wrong, do they have a way of selecting people who play specific roles?
In the end with denominations I reckon it is the main game - the life, death and resurrection, the belief and following Jesus in Spirit and Truth that is the most important, where you worship comes second so long as the former is evident.
What is a "priest"? If it's someone who is an intermediary between the gathered worshipping people and God, there can be no such thing as a Christian priest. We are called to receive the Holy Spirit directly, and have a direct relationship with God characterized by direct encounter, dialogue and oneness, as modelled in the life of Jesus Christ. The new covenant, as Jeremiah prophesized, is written on our hearts.
If a priest is someone who is charged with performing sacrifices on behalf of the community - gosh!...and see above.
If a priest is a "leader", someone with a special gift for a particular ministry, or the gift of coordinating others in worship and pastoral care, then perhaps "worship leader" or "minister" or "elder" etc is better. And it is surely much better to recognize that everyone has a special gift for ministry is someway or other, and for church leadership to be shared rather than fall on the shoulders of a select, powerful, overburdened few.
I used to think women becoming priests was a good thing, but now I don't believe that. Because the whole notion of a separate class of professional Christians, who wear different clothes than the rest of us, who sit in special ornate seats in the higher places , and who alone have special powers to represent Christ and magically turn the bread into his body...this whole system remains disempowering and, for me at least, anti-Christian, anti-Gospel, whether priests are women or men.
My main personal argument against priests is similar to George Fox's: through the many spiritual crises and journeys of the past few years, I never met a priest who could help me. And I really, really tried. No one could speak into what I was going through in a helpful way. That often made me angry and despairing, though in the end I understood that that is the way it is. In the end, it forces us to turn in to the Spirit, the Guide, directly. That's our work and it is wrong to expect others to carry that for us.
To Jean at 6.10:
Indeed, all groups, structures, "churches" need a way of ensuring that the strongest voices and personalities don't dominate - and that individuals, couples, cliques, subgroups, best friends etc are gathered together with the whole "church", with others of different views and gifts. I suppose that, in part, in what a Bishop and Moderator does in Anglican, Catholic, and Presbyterian etc churches.
Quakers probably look quite anarchic to other Christians but they are not "Ranters" - ie another 17thC English sect who believed individuals could do what they like, as long as the Spirit moved them. All "leadings" (of the Spirit) need to be "tested" in community. Quakers actually have quite rigorous processes for collective decision making, church governance, conflict resolution etc., it's just that in these processes no one individual or group has anymore voting power than anyone else. (Whether Quakers "Meetings" actually uphold these ideals is another matter, entirely!!!).
I like how spirit-centred these governance processes are: when the way is lost in a "Meeting for Worship for Business", it is common to call for a period of silence or "worship" to attune to the Spirit's guidance once more. Anyone in the Meeting may make such a call. Secularization, however, has severely watered down this spirit-centredness in many parts of the world, the result being many Meetings for Worship for Business end up feeling like a community rotary AGM.
"Clerks" are those in a Meeting appointed to chair such processes. Their role is difficult, unpaid, shared, and time limited
Quakers who have a special gift for "verbal ministry" used to be recognized as "ministers" or given the informal appellation "a weighty Quaker" - but such "ministers" were never paid or given structural authority over others (not until the evangelical revival created Evangelical Quakers in other parts of the world...another story). Quaker Meetings traditionally have a group of appointed "Elders" responsible for spiritual care, and "Overseers" responsible for pastoral care, but these appointments are unpaid, shared with others on the committee, time limited (say, 3 years), and do not come with explicit structural power.
In the Quaker sense, women have always been "ministers", "bishops", and "deacons" - that is, have always possessed and exercised powers of verbal ministry, teaching and prophecy, pastoral and spiritual care, and community oversight.
I have been thinking of Acts 13, where five ‘prophets and teachers’ were praying and fasting and clearly listening to the Spirit. He said words that sent Barnabas and Saul on their first missionary journey. This had apparently already been spoken of. A case of spiritual discernment in a group setting which sounds very Quaker!
Note Acts 15:3 ... and they laid hands on them ... thus and so has ordination been part of the church, then and now!
Ordination? In the Catholic sense? Or blessing and sending church members into travelling ministry?
What an interesting thread! Thanks all. My personal experience has been that clergy have been wonderful to me - they've been a huge help and encouragement and I'm consequently hugely grateful! I've read of many excellent clergy and also many, shall I say, "troubling" clergy, and some unfortunately have also been downright wicked. This leaves me feeling very torn between the two extremes and the divide between good done/harm done. My beef is more with church disciplinary systems and how they've favoured oppressive clergy so many times (by tending to be a refuge for bad actors and piling grief upon grief for those harmed). This *really* enrages me!
Thanks for the explanation Mark that is interesting to learn re how Quaker’s go about things, it sounds similar to the open Brethren in some aspects albeit not when it comes to women in ministry 😏….
I have to be honest I don’t know the distinction between Priest, Minister, Vicar re the positions I just tend to call those called to shepherd the flock so to speak Ministers or Pastors. However, I do get what you are getting at when you talk of professional Christians, special chair and special powers… in respect to the role of a Priest, however, I doubt many Priests view there role in that way these days and Cor 9:14 is a prescription that those who preach the Gospel are to receive a living from doing so although Paul chose not to.
Like Liz I have encountered Ministers/Priests who have been most supportive and a few who haven’t - I am sorry to hear your journey found you at a point where none could speak into your situation in a helpful way.
My take is that there is a role for both, each of us personally listening too, being used by and led by the Holy Spirit, and having leaders - so a both and rather than one or the other. I suspect ordination and sending church members is somewhat equatable with ordination as it means commissioning. Hence, +Peter’s reference (although I think it is Acts 13:3 (maybe?)) regarding Barnabas and Paul being set apart and having hands laid upon them. It is notable that this comes after time in worship and is a revelation from the Holy Spirit. I am supposing, although I don’t know, that such discernment is undertaken when accepting people for ordination in the Anglican Church?
I think the Quaker way of doing things sounds very workable and I do like the idea of worship during a Business meeting when things get to an impasse!! The one thing that would be a conundrum for me would be the limited tenure of roles, while I acknowledge some people stay in certain roles for far too long, I also have a sense of calling being important, that God say like with Paul and Barnabas calls people to a particular ministry as a life calling so to speak, whilst giving them the gifts to perform it, and that one of these things is being a Shepherd of the flock. Like Moses, like Paul, like Pricilla…
Liz, I can understand why you are conflicted! I think it is up to all members of the Church to help ensure “troubling” clergy or “troubling parishioners” 😏 don’t wreak havoc. Certainly the cultural onus on keeping quiet 🤐 about such matters and male authoritarianism hasn’t helped, I say cultural because it wasn’t or isn’t just in the church it’s been the same in businesses (bullying and abuse) and unfortunately in homes most of all. My older friend now passed away was told by her minister that her husband left her because she’s was the female of the species - nothing to do with him being an alcoholic - incredibly she remained a faithful christian. Often older people I talk to say it was just the way it was, people knew so and so beat his wife but no one took any action or bought it up in public, confronted him etc etc…. Fortunately things are going in the right direction with the Church albeit as with all situations working with large groups of people it takes more time than we would like. ‘Should’ those adhering to being Christian’s not do such things? Very much so I would think 🤔 but I also suspect this is a very simplified statement. I once read of a case where a boy abused when he was young entered the ministry and then tragically ended up abusing a young adult male down the track - he was caught and charged and upon release voluntarily submitted to accountability so he was never around young men alone again. I don’t know all the psychology of it - help Mark - but there does seem to be a co-relation between being abused and then becoming the abuser.
Whoops, yes, 13:3 not 15:3.
I wouldn't mind if we used "presbyters" rather than "priests" (an option in our NZ prayer book); or that we used "priests" to mean elders of the church, presiders at communion, and not sacrificers ... though even so, our Anglican communion is the offering of a sacrifice of praise!
Ordination: well, it does have its roots in the scriptural period of the church, and its development is well charted in the developing church through the next few centuries. Anglicanism as a reformed version of the Christian faith has never been about reforming everything, and certainly not about reforming that which has been deemed not to be broken ... though obviously that was not the assessment of (say) Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians etc.
I do accept that, under the guidance of wisdom, the Spirit, and the light of our own soul and needs, different Christian communities develop different readings of sacred text and narrative, subsequently different forms of spiritual process.
However, Acts 13:3 seems to me as far away from the Catholic/Anglican sense of "ordination" as Luke 22:19-20 is from the Catholic/Anglican sense of "communion".
I never thought I would become so Protestant in my middle years 😶 when even Presbyterians and Baptists look like they have only half finished the job.
Going the other way, my great Uncle Jim, who was a committed Baptist minister all his life, and took daily swims in the cold Waianakarua river, attended many Catholic retreats at Teschmakers, and even visited the Holy Mountain (Athos) later in his life.
Great! Two things particularly stand out for me:
"And it is surely much better to recognize that everyone has a special gift for ministry is someway or other, and for church leadership to be shared rather than fall on the shoulders of a select, powerful, overburdened few." ~Mark
"My take is that there is a role for both, each of us personally listening too, being used by and led by the Holy Spirit, and having leaders - so a both and rather than one or the other." ~Jean
*
The "priesthood of all believers", mentioned several times, is a term I'm familiar with from my evangelical background. I'd like to have a deeper knowledge of its meaning; in my old context of Open Brethren the "all believers" rang hollow because women were treated as lesser in so many ways.
Many "troubles" I've read about have arisen in situations where there's been a strong leader with "charismatic" personality and a significant number of devotee-type congregants, along with other "loyalty" bonds (e.g. family/friends, fellow clergy), excessive status in the leadership role, and lax oversight/discipline from the church structure.
So I feel that the idea of a participatory, inclusive, sharing, encouraging, and above all, loving, church is vitally important - with ordained and lay members working together toward that ideal. It's clearly necessary to have some form of framework and authority structure but seems best as *shared* responsibility, with thought for diversity, rather than being invested in one person. As an observer, I'm much impressed with the ACANZP having three diverse representatives share the top church position; it's my fervant hope that works out well.
Jean, I appreciate your point (and will think more on it):
"...while I acknowledge some people stay in certain roles for far too long, I also have a sense of calling being important, that God say like with Paul and Barnabas calls people to a particular ministry as a life calling so to speak, whilst giving them the gifts to perform it..."
Quakers believe that everyone is called to offer ministry their entire lives, and in particular ways as we receive and follow the Spirit's "leading" and "concern" (say, regarding slavery or climate change or listening to dreams).
Quakers also recognize the ministry of those who communicate more quietly (through the quality of their presence, in silence, say) or unselfconsciously (the presence and spontaneity of children as vital ministry to the congregation). In practice, this radical and broad understanding is vulnerable to becoming easily forgotten or glossed, however. The more Anglican sense of an explicit "calling" less easily brushed over, perhaps.
I re-found an essay in my browser bookmarks, from TGC, "The Priesthood of All Believers" which refreshed my memory on the evangelical perspective, helped me learn a bit about the history, and included some comparison with the traditional view about priests.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-priesthood-of-all-believers/
Another from my bookmarks, fascinating read. Academic article from South Africa (2020) with fab historic overview. I've got SO re-interested in this, thanks to it being mentioned several times in the above thread :)
The priesthood of believers: The forgotten legacy of the reformation
https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222020000400028
It makes me smile Mark, the thought of different denominations being up or down the sliding scale so to speak : ) …. In the churches I have belonged to there have always people who have come from or grown up in other denominations, it seems as much as we may ‘think’ denominationally at times many times it is a sliding scale especially over a lifetime!
Mmmm I think communion as practiced in the Anglican ‘way’ has in it the core of Luke 22 - as in do this in remembrance of me - ‘Christ’s blood shed for you’, ‘Christ’s body broken for you’ - with a bit more elaboration around the edges : ) …
It’s a refreshing perspective to think of a person’s ‘presence’ as a ministry and a gift, for sure and for certain I find children lift ones spirits. On that note when the girl guides put up our church christmas tree this year I was asked “what does heaven look like?” Nothing like being put on the spot for your tired mind to go completely blank.
So would it be correct to say Quakers see minister as evolving, like it changes as one is led by the Holy Spirit alongside to age or circumstance or world events… etc? Almost seeing ministry as the generic task of all who believe - I am on board with that. RE your comment lol I am not sure if Anglican’s per see have a sense of an explicit calling although I think it is termed a ‘call to ministry’ for those seeking leadership, but mostly what I said was my own take on spiritual gifting - an applied to all areas of ministry not just spiritual leadership. Take like Florence Nightingale, well known now and although ‘high born’ as the saying goes most likely not well known for what she did until after she had followed the vision she receiving, the calling from God, to be a nurse - and went against convention and her parents to follow it. It has seemed evident to me in the churches I have belonged to that some people are called to minister in different ways almost always equating with their gifts from God - whether it be hospitality or music or etc, not that others won’t also do those things but really for some it seems a God given thing. And one of the greatest areas of tension I have seen in churches is with people who are adamant they will serve in a particular area and yet cause havoc while doing so - I am not discounting the opportunity to give things a go or needing to grow and learn as we go but more alongside Liz’s observation re charismatic persons but I would term it in this case dominating personalties.
I would lean to thinking that most Ministers are very keen for lay people to be involved and that the model of a Minister is to be a servant leader - albeit we do know this has gone pear shaped many times in history or in certain churches geographically.
Liz - I think your summary at 8.35 is very on the ball! I will take a look at the article you reference. My top of the head understanding is it links in with Jeremiah 31 which references how no longer will we need to be taught because we all know God ourselves - as in when Jesus came as the true High Priest it opened the way for all people through Jesus to know God personally.
I concur re the Open Brethren stance on women. I found it quite unique when I went to a service with my friend once and had to cover my head and to listen to the men stand up and preach. Also quite humbling having no one at the altar. Overall I suspect all denominations fall short in one way or another when it comes to being aligned with what scripture shows us of how His church is to be or more how his people as the living stones of His church are to behave : )…
Post a Comment