Female bishops?

The Anglican Church has just voted in favour of women bishops and lots of people will be very happy about that including many with no links to the church who will see this as a positive move which brings the church up to date with the rest of society. Your average punter who reads the Guardian, The Times or Independent will consider this a really ‘right on’ move, the church is getting down with it in 2014. I beg to differ. The trouble is that a lot of these people may not have much idea of what the Bible teaches about these matters, or of ecclesiastical history.

It is never the church’s role to go along with the rest of society, the matter in question here being the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which have governed church teaching for the last two thousand years versus the current ‘God’ of equality, to which every other idea must bow . Of course the modern mind thinks why on earth should women not be allowed to be bishops, surely they are equally capable of such a leadership role? They must have equality. They have a ‘right’ to equality. Surely every self respecting MP and enlightened member of the General Synod could hardly think otherwise. David Cameron himself, sage that he is, said that the church needed to ‘get with the programme’ and ‘be a modern church in touch with society as it is today.’ After the last vote on this by the Synod there was consternation in the ruling elite. How can the church act like this in these days of equality? There was even talk of forcing the church to bow to Lord Equality. Even Frank Field, a Labour MP I have more time for, suggested that coercion should be used. Tradition and even right and wrong, do you not know, must always submit to equality. And so the State strengthens the death grip of political correctness on the Church of England, just as it is doing with the rest of society. For the State’s counterfeit morality must hold sway over every nook and cranny of the nation, even that part of the State which is supposed to bow its knee ultimately only to God. But perhaps that is its ultimate Achilles heel. It is wedded to the State.

But leadership in the church is not a question of equality when it comes to men or women, it is a question of role. It is difficult to interpret the Scriptures in any other way than the implicit default position that church leadership is male. The main characters in leadership positions throughout the Scriptures were almost invariably male, Abraham, Moses, the prophets, the twelve disciples, St Paul and so on. Even God is referred to as male, and the high priests of equality would love to rewrite that bit of the Bible, so that He can be seen as equally female as well. The Scriptures also teach that the man is the head of the home, although this would cause many feminists to foam at the mouth, and not just feminists! We are not talking about headship in terms of some authoritarian Victorian father, a misleading stereotype, but of headship based on servant leadership. The husband is there to cherish and honour his wife as well as taking leadership initiative.

 No true Christian questions the truth that all people are absolutely equal in value or worth regardless of sex, ethnic origin, disability, religion and yes regardless of all nine strands of equality legislation, to which ‘obesity’ may be added the way things are going!. Yet equality of value does not mean equality of role or behaviour. The fact that leadership is predominantly male in the Bible and church history in no way presupposes that women are inferior in any way. It is just that women have different functions, and the function of leading the church as a whole is not for a woman. This does not mean that she has innumerable opportunities to minster and serve in the church in various capacities.

There are exceptions to this preponderance of male leadership in the Bible, such as Deborah the judge in the Old Testament who was hardly a girlie girl! History also has its share of amazing female warriors, think Boadicea, Joan of Arc and some even may invoke the name of Mrs Thatcher. They were no less leaders because they were female, it’s just that they tended to be exceptional.

From a strategic point of view I am not sure this is a good decision. It will increasingly feminise an already female dominated church. If you have been around churches for a while you will know that there is a majority of women in congregations. The difficulty of attracting men into the church is a big issue, and promoting female bishops will not encourage an influx of men. We now live in a society where the question is already being asked anyway as to whether men in the west are capable any more of defending western culture because of the emasculation of so called masculine values in recent years. The church and Christianity are historically part of the core of western civilisation, certainly in the UK, and you need warriors to lead both the church and nation today given the threats to our civilisation. Saints of old like John Wesley, George Whitfield, George Fox and William Booth of the Salvation Army were tough warriors for the Gospel, not cosseted wimps. They were not averse to offending all and sundry by pronouncing what they believed was the truth. So male leadership and some of the traditional qualities it brings with it are even more vital and important. There is of course another religion that is challenging the historical supremacy of the Christian religion in the west and many other countries across the globe. And as we all know Islam is a male dominated religion. Will a church which is now opening the way to be led by women be able to provide robust competition for the souls of men?

When all’s said and done, there is yet another issue. Would the Almighty raise up women to be bishops if the men are not willing to fulfil the role the Scriptures indicate they should take? It has been said that at the Fall when Adam and Eve sinned man abdicated his responsibility and woman usurped his authority. Ursurpation would be a strong word in our modern context, but if men do not take a clear lead as bishops standing for traditional Christian teaching, then women might do a better job of this. Food for thought! The problem with the Anglican Church is that it has decided to move with society rather than stand firm on Biblical teaching. The role of the church generally is to stand like a rock sometimes ‘in the middle of a wicked and perverse generation’ as the Scriptures say. The world may not like it, but many will grudgingly respect its refusal to go along with every fad and fashion of current culture which is a truly moveable feast. That needs rugged warriors who will not flinch an inch. Those sort of men would recognise the bullying spirit behind ‘equality’ for what it is, and tell it to get lost regardless of the consequences.

Just my humble opinion!