18 NOVEMBER 1972, Page 10

The Church

The priestess question

Edward Norman

Last week the General Synod of the Church of England formally received a 'consultative document' on the ordination of women to the priesthood and to the episcopacy. There was a general hope that a decision on the question could be arrived at by 1975. The ' consultative document' was itself written by a woman — Miss Christian Howard — and it is probably the most thorough advocacy of this particular cause since the appearance some years ago of ' Women in Holy Orders considered in the light of Scripture' by Miss Lace. Miss Howard's paper is scholarly and generous in its sensitivity to the difficulties involved. It aims to present the evidence impartially, not "as arguments for or against, but as differing views held within the Church of England." But despite her obvious integrity the paper is in consequence of unconscious bias in the style and priority of presentation, a work of quiet polemicism.

The present avalanche of reports within the Church of England — about every aspect of its constitution and purpose — has included some extraordinary documents. The Synod also had before it a paper on the 'Education and Training' of the laity which is surely one of the most ridiculous essays ever published by a responsible body. It is splendid, to be able to record the great merit, by contrast, of Miss Howard's document. There is only one reservation: this paper, like nearly all others emanating from the Church of England today, consistently misuses the word sociology '. Where, for example, the document declares that " regional variations suggest that sociological factors affect the time at which a Church decides to ordain women" the authoress presumably means social ' factors '; and in writing that "sociologically this question does not exist in Orthodox countries " evidently, again, the correct word ought to be socially. On page 46 of the document, incredibly, we read that God himself "takes account of all facts, including sociological ones." Now sociology is a method of inquiry; it is a statistical and comparative science. It has no normative authority as such; its findings, if they are intellectually respectable, are neutral, Churchmen (and Churchwomen, come to that) who aspire to the vocabulary of the age must make sure that they get it right.

There seems to be general agreement among advocates of the ordination of• women that the case rests upon the principle of ripe time. "The time is ripe for the Church to proceed, to full and open consideration of this issue," writes the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich in his report to the Synod. The Anglican Consultative Council, which met at Limuru in 1971, publishes its invitation to the constituent churches of the Anglican Communion, to consider the ordination of females, under the suggestive title The

Time is Now. But why is it now? Clearly St Paul's belief in the subordination of women is no longer within the calculation. His advice to the Christians at Corinth that "women should keep silence in the churches" is now but a nostalgic memory. So is his additional remark: "if there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home." A lot of contemporary churchmen espouse the view described by Miss Howard —" there is no divinely appointed unchanging church order valid for all ages and places." Scripture is inconclusive evidence either way: a point, incidentally, which the bishops had better watch out for. All the arguments in favour of women priests which are established in the ambiguity of New Testament texts may be used as arguments against episcopacy too.

It is contemporary culture, contemporary social belief, and contemporary knowledge about the relativity of sexual /ties (it is supposed) which make the time ripe for the ordination of women. But for whom is it ripe? Is it ripe for the nation, and, if so, who is to consult the nation? For it is still a National Church. Is the time ripe for the ordinary parishioners? Or is the ordination of women just another example of the leadership of the Church expressing middle-class radicalism; a diversion of the professionals? There is every likelihood that this last is the case. If it is, then is the sensibility of the majority, however outmoded, to be laid aside? It is likely, as the Lambeth Conference declared in 1968, that there really are no theological arguments against the ordination of women which can now find wide acceptance ; but the bishops at Lambeth implied that the time was not ripe. At what point in development does the leadership in a society of changing social values take a leap in the dark? It is not, as the present advocates of a female priesthood suppose, when the arguments which appeal to the current modes of intellectual and professional thinking have attained a certain consistency: it is, on the contrary, when the people whom an institution exists to serve are best served by a change in accordance with their sensibilities. That time, on this issue, has obviously not arrived.

There are many indications of this. Some are technical. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Christians are not, as yet, seriously contemplating the ordination of women. Yet they constitute the overwhelming majority of Christians on the planet. Any hope for a truly ecumenical movement will be jeopardised by unilateral Anglican action touching so sensitive an aspect of the ministry. The Church is also, at this time, subject to spasms of self-analysis. The entire nature and function of the ordained ministry is apparently under critical scrutiny, and for those who find this exercise interesting or necessary it would be injudicious, to say the least, if the future role of the clergy was to be decided around an issue like this one -far too many incalculable emotions are involved. It is also unlikely that there is any general preparedness for women priests in the Anglican Communion as a whole. In Hong Kong two women have already been ordained, and Burma and New Zealand have approved the principle. But the Church in the South Pacific, and in the US, has decided against the change. The conflict of opinion is still far too divisive.

But most important of all: there is every indication that the ordinary parishioners Of England are opposed to the enterprise. The notion of women priests and bishops continues to offend some deeply implanted sensibilities, and, for many, their entire religious sense is involved. Perhaps they are foolish, and before long the sunnY confidence of the 'seventies will burn awaY their inhibitions. But it has not yet happened. There is also no statistical evidence of any sort about public attitudes to the proposed change. No one has actually sampled opinion outside the diocesan synods — and those bodies are scarcely representative, since they reflect an internal view, a view of those concerned with organisational problemS, and since, also, the laity in those synods are readily assimilated to professional attitudes of the clergy. The present writer, seeking some place of multi-class and external opinion, asked a chance sample col patients in a large city hospital what theY thought. The result was as might have beel; predicted. Middle-class and professional people tended to find the prospect funny, but could, not, in general, see an objection. Working-class people thought it absurd. It is interesting that Miss Howard, in her document, found that existing deaconesses and women lay-workers — who, as e group, are broadly middle-class — Were largely in favour of female priests; whereas Church Army Sisters — who at generally of lower social origin, and vvh° certainly work in closer proximity to the working classes — were evenly divided. Miss Howard also recognises that since the proposed change is set upon a scale determined by a consensus about title appropriate time, then practical objections "if serious, and not simply used as 3 delaying action, may be a sign that the time has not yet arrived." The injury likelY to be done to the religious sense of s°t many humble Christian people is the Mos emphatic practical sign that this is not the time. Miss Howard's wisdom is greater than that of the propagandists of the, Anglican Group for the Ordination o' Women, Their pamphlet contains the, extraordinary assertion that " whethe: women or men want it or do not want it not the point, nor should it decide the,, Church's action." In their view, it will h: right if it is God's Will. So be it; but Goer' Will is discerned by human agency. Miss Howard ends her paper by praYloge that "the manner of the debate" on th woman question would be appropriatel.):, conciliatory. It is to be hoped that this W'ns be allowed by the 'Action Group' of lade who met just before the assembly of LI'd General Synod, and by the YouniPe clergyman who spoke about •" ma chauvinist pigs" at one of the diocese'

nd

synods. It is always men of wisdom a; compassion who realise that the aPPlo'' cation of principles and rational ideas ca.5 be brutalising and offensive; and it ,10 always the foolish, but analytical, seek to apply them. The Church has n°5 to balance the hurt done to the religion sense of those women who belies' themselves called to the priesthood, against the hurt done to those who are to be ministered to. There is no doubt whose feelings should have priority. It is, nevertheless, an unhappy choice, And those who need further gloom can now turn to the World Council of Churches' handout in favour of women clergymen. It has the tangy title, ' What is Ordination Coming to?'