on>
Without Precedent
Scripture, Tradition, and the Ordination of Women
Geoffrey Kirk
Without Precedent
Scripture, Tradition, and the Ordination of Women
Copyright © 2016 Geoffrey Kirk. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.
Wipf & Stock
An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers
199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3
Eugene, OR 97401
www.wipfandstock.com
paperback isbn: 978-1-4982-3081-0
hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-3083-4
eisbn: 978-1-4982-3082-7
Manufactured in the U.S.A.
In piam memoriam
A M F
Acknowledgements
Books begin with conversations. I owe a debt of gratitude first to Jenny Standage. The conversations with Jenny—in a curious but rewarding friendship between the National Secretaries of the Movement for the Ordination of Women and of Forward in Faith—have lasted for two decades and are not over. Neither party, I think, would claim to have changed minds in any fundamental way; but despite the surrounding political heat, light has been generated.
I am also grateful to the clergy and people of the Most Precious Blood, SE1, who have shared parts of what follows and offered me comments and reflections. I especially thank Joanna Bogle and Antonia Lynn.
It was Dr. Colin Podmore who first encouraged me to write. His generosity with his time and the wisdom of his contributions to the conversation have been an inspiration. He worked tirelessly in helping prepare the text for publication, and rescued me from numerous errors and inaccuracies. Needless to say, the errors that remain are mine alone.
Introduction
I had thought to begin this introduction with an apology. Over twenty years on from the first ordinations of women priests in the Church of England, and over half a century since the debate began in earnest, yet another book on the subject might be thought to be trying the public’s patience. But apology, it turns out, would be superfluous: there are so few books.
In his invaluable collection of essays, “Aspects of Anglican Identity,”1 Dr. Colin Podmore provides a useful summary of the discussion documents related to the synodical process in the Church of England. These slender volumes begin with the report, “Women in Holy Orders.”2 In 1968, the Anglican Consultative Council (a very different organization in those days) issued a discussion document, “Women in Ministry: A Study,”3 which was sent out for debate among all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. A short time later, the Church of England’s Advisory Council for the Church’s Ministry published a paper entitled “The Ordination of Women to the Priesthood.”4 This was the first of a number of synodical contributions by Miss (later Dame) Christian Howard. Howard was a member of a well-known Northern family with strong connections to the suffragette movement. Though lacking any formal university education (she attended finishing schools in Italy and France), she became a significant figure in the General Synod and later became a member of the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission and its first woman vice-moderator. Her other contributions were “A Supplement”5 and “A Further Report.”6 The first contribution of the House of Bishops of the Church of England to the unfolding debate7 was a response to the recommendations of a synod working party on the possible shape of legislation, and only in a very limited sense a theological commentary. It was in 1988 that the House provided a more substantial (140-page) report8 that addressed scriptural and doctrinal issues directly. Like the previous House of Bishops report, GS 829 was claimed to be “unanimous”; though in fact it revealed substantial differences of opinion within the House on almost every topic raised. The then religious affairs correspondent of The Times, Clifford Longley, who was present at the press launch, commented laconically that it was a very Anglican use of the term “unanimous.” The next official synodical contribution to the debate was in “The Rochester Report”9 (a substantial theological report of 289 pages, published in November 2004). It was followed by a summary in March of the same year.
Whatever one’s attitude to the result of this process, there can be no doubt that it was both more thorough and more extensive than any undertaken elsewhere in the Anglican Communion. After posing several critical questions about the synodical process, Podmore concludes his overview thus:
Whatever the answer to these questions, the Church of England can take pride in its synodical system. No one could claim that the Synod acted hastily or without due consideration. Only after 22 years of debate and discussion was a motion calling for legislation passed, and the process from then until the promulgation of the canon took more than nine further years. The legislation was prepared and revised with great care and attention to detail, and debated not only in the General and diocesan Synods but in each deanery synod. The final approval debate was widely praised for its tone and quality by those who heard a Synod debate for the first time on radio or television.10
All well and good. But such a survey of the material, useful as it is, omits the most important feature of the debate—which is, of course, the absence of any serious contributions from the academic community. The big beasts of the theological academy are conspicuous by their absence. They seem deliberately to have avoided the subject, even when they were themselves involved in the synodical process. How might the debate have been illuminated by a pithy, incisive monograph by David Jenkins, a door-stopping assessment by Tom Wright, or a measured, ingenious, convoluted defense of the innovation by Rowan Williams? We will never know. They left the debate, for the most part, to the also-rans. Back in the mists of history, it is true there were contributions (albeit brief) of some weight. One thinks of the essay by C. S. Lewis, “Priestesses in the Church?”11 and the short paper by Bishop Henley Henson.12 But even so, they are few. A matter of months before his death, I asked Eric Mascall why neither he nor his contemporaries had written anything substantial on the subject. He drew my attention to the paper by V. A. Demant13 and concluded ruefully: “I suppose we just did not see it coming.”
This reluctance to enter the fray has a number of causes. The waters, it is true, were already very muddy. Absurd claims were being made by proponents (some of them detailed in this book), which any serious academic assessment would have to ignore or contest. And, in due deference to the ladies, no one really wanted to do either. But more than that, there was the overwhelming conviction of the bien-pensants (especially in the left-leaning academy) that this was an open and shut case. Even to argue in its favor was to demonstrate an unacceptable degree of political incorrectness. In the