Can any state-established church long retain the fortitude to speak truth to power when its leaders consider themselves obligated to follow “the trends and priorities of wider society”?
-Wesley J. Smith, quoting an excerpt of former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams’ farewell address in his article “The High Price of Establishment”
One of the most disturbing aspects of this entire debate is the problem of language. When British PM David Cameron urged the Church of England to “ensure its place as a modern church in touch without society”, he was, rather unsurprisingly, speaking with a view toward public opinion polls. These show that while only a small minority of Britons regularly attend Sunday services in England’s established Church, almost half of them continue to identify as Anglican, and the public overwhelmingly desires – and insists on – the Church’s acceptance of women into its episcopate. Yet what are the consequences of changing a Church’s doctrines, or re-framing its policies, in response to the demands of ever-shifting public opinion?
There are clear dangers in the sentiment which underlies the Prime Minister’s statement here. Is the goal of any Church simply to “ensure its place” as “modern”, or perceived as relevant to the ever-changing norms of the society in which it exists? The Church of England is, obviously, a longstanding historical institution of the British state and society. Yet if leading Britons such as Mr. Cameron only frame the established Church’s role primarily in these secular and political terms, they risk losing any comprehension or understanding of the Church of England as above all else a Christian Church whose greatest duty is to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all.
In their eagerness to ensure that the Church maintains its established position by catering to the changing tides of a public opinion largely ignorant of Christian theology and history, those pushing for these reforms seem unaware that a Church which so compromises and alters its doctrines will have little remaining authority in society to speak certain truths to it. A Church which shows itself willing to operate as a malleable institution obsessed with perceptions of relevancy and keeping its privileged status cannot inspire much devotion in its people, nor will political society or public opinion respect it as an authoritative national voice when it has surrendered on all positions that contradicts or challenges them.
Wesley J. Smith comments on this dilemma in his excellent November 2012 article in First Things, “The High Prince of Establishment”. Referencing last year’s vote which saw the narrow procedural defeat of the motion to introduce women as bishops, Smith notes his reaction to then-Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ remarks following the vote:
But I was astonished when, the day after the vote, the Archbishop of Canterbury not only bemoaned the failure in his farewell speech to the General Synod, but also insisted that the Church had betrayed its responsibility to reflect the sensibilities and values of the general culture: “Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday,” Williams sternly lectured his flock, “whatever the theological principle on which people acted or spoke,” dissenters had to understand that their objection to woman bishops “is not intelligible to wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are willfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of wider society.”
Whatever his settled views of the matter, the unfortunate suggestion in these remarks is that the Church of England has the duty to be of as well as in society, rather than in, but not of it—a breathtaking assertion for a major Christian leader that turns the traditional and proper role of faith on its head. . .
As the Church of England remains England’s established national religious body, I can understand theological and political liberals’ arguments that the Church should be an inclusive place accessible to “wider society”, welcoming to all Britons who walk through its parish doors or attend one of its schools. If one views the Church first and foremost as an established national institution within a liberal constitutional monarchy, then any objections to women as bishops ultimately fail against the immutable rock that is Public Opinion, that force which embodies, if only temporarily, the conventions, convictions, and sentiments of the English nation.
If we consider then, the Church as essentially a national institution which teaches some doctrines people no longer really care about but whose foremost work is the preservation of many ancient historical sites which serve dwindling congregations of worshipers, then, certainly, it does not seem acceptable for young girls walking into services to see only men serving as the leading clerical figures. Notwithstanding the profound theological ignorance underpinning the view that young girls must see women “leading” the Church as visible members of the hierarchy in order to see themselves as being equal with men, I do understand how such a view would lead to the argument that the episcopacy must be opened to women, especially, for consistency’s sake, given that the Church has ordained women as priests since 1994.
The core problem here is the reductionist framing of any Church’s mission in unabashedly secular, political terms. The above argument, advanced by all theological liberals across denominational lines seeking to open the priesthood and episcopacy to women and/or active or partnered homosexuals and transgendered persons, is to treat the Church in question firstly as a national or local institution responsible to the demands of a polity (in this case, the “of England”), and only consider its ecclesiastical, spiritual, and eternal roles (“The Church” as a means to corporate transformation and communal salvation) as decidedly secondary concerns which must be subordinated and made to conform to the demands and vision of the body politic. To examine women’s presence (or lack thereof) in a Church hierarchy and use this to determine whether or not a Church values women at all reeks not only of gross patronizing and profound historical and theological ignorance, but also of a politicization of the Church which dangerously, and mistakenly, equates clerical service with power.
Were all the thousands of female Saints the Church has recognized “not valued” because they did not serve as priests? Was the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God Incarnate, unimportant because she never served as a bishop? The conclusion that the (hitherto male) Church hierarchy are the “empowered” group within the Church, and that, therefore, those not in the clerical or prelate ranks have no power in or real value to the Church, is both an extremely unfortunate dismissal of women’s active roles in the Church throughout the centuries prior to the notion of ordaining women, and a dangerous equation of servant leadership roles with political advancement and power.
Writing in First Things in May 2011, Joe Carter references this superb essay by Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Carter’s provocatively titled short article “The Death Knell for the Church of England”. In his essay, Mohler reflects on the sad irony that, while the Church “remains established as the national church, [it] is no longer established in the hearts of the nation.” He presents a grim picture for the Church, which retains its institutional privileges and established position at the center of national life while becoming increasingly irrelevant in the lives of most Britons:
The formality of state occasions may provide drama and a sense of vitality, but these are masks. How many in the congregation gathered for last week’s royal wedding knew any of the words to the great hymns that were sung? Only three percent of the nation’s population attends Church of England services even once a month. Given current trends, few Anglican parishes will have ministers in just a few decades. Like many other historic churches and denominations, the Church of England is passing through decline, and it faces nothing short of demise unless these trends are somehow reversed.
As valid as the institutional question of establishment may be, the more important factor in this pattern of decline is theological. Churches and denominations decline when they lose or forfeit their passion for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. . . If life and death are no longer understood to hang in the balance, there is little reason for the British people to worry about anything related to Christianity. If a church is not passionate about seeing sinners come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, if there is no powerful biblical message from its pulpits, then it is destined for decline and eventual disappearance.
When a church forfeits its doctrinal convictions and then embraces ambiguity and tolerates heresy, it undermines its own credibility and embraces its own destruction.
Having studied the Church of England for many years, I have to agree with Dr. Mohler. Whenever a Church begins to frame its purpose or mission within the constructs of language or political discourse not initiated by the Church, but by a largely unchurched public and their equally unchurched representatives, then its own sense of mission, historical placement and theological integrity wind up inevitably being called into question. It seems extraordinary that some do not seem to believe that a Church’s foremost concern must be to teach, live and incarnate the Gospel of Christ in the lives of all its people and those whom it serves.
Bearing this in mind, it would have been acceptable if faithful Anglicans at the General Synod had pronounced that the consecration of women as bishops is fundamentally necessary for the Church of England to teach, live and incarnate the Gospel of Christ. I would disagree with such a conclusion, but I would at the very least respect it as one corresponding to the Church of England’s sense of its own mission, that its Synod deeply believed that the introduction of women as bishops in its Church life was crucial in communicating the Gospel. It is deeply troubling that the decision to introduce women as bishops was made in a kind of political vacuum, utterly divorced from discussing the theological and doctrinal imperatives, justifications and implications for the change, and taking into account only the “trends and priorities of wider society”.
It is especially astonishing that such a momentous decision was reached with almost no reference to what Scriptures, the Church Fathers and Mothers, ecumenical councils, or the writings of divers Saints had to say on women’s role in the Church. Yet, following recent developments in the Church of England, it is sadly unsurprising that those pushing for this change did not bother to ask themselves “What do the Scriptures, holy tradition, and the Saints say on this subject?” The only real concerns in the minds of many, certainly the current and former Archbishops of Canterbury and the Prime Minister, seem to have been over questions of relevancy, public opinion, and political pressure.
Regardless of what one’s position is on the subject of women’s ordination to the priesthood, or consecration as bishops, it is tragic that the decision to introduce women as bishops should have been reached in such a climate. Evidently it is far easier for most English Anglicans today to dismiss the consensus of almost 2,000 years of Christian theology, to break with their own past and barrel along headfirst into a new and uncertain age (of new and uncertain beliefs), then it is to take the time to thoughtfully examine the doctrinal and theological reasons for why women did not serve as priests or bishops for almost two millennia in Christendom.
Part I of this two-part entry was published yesterday and may be found here.
No comments yet
