You gotta hand it to this new medium of blogging for its ability to facilitate the process of completely missing the point of what someone is trying to say. On the other hand, let's hear it for how it facilitates a conversation because there is probably no higher form of conversation than hearing what someone heard you say spit back at you. To that end, I'm appreciative of Maggie Dawn, an Episcopalian Anglican (UPDATE: Sorry, my bad.) priest serving as the chaplain of Robinson College of the University of Cambridge (as best I can tell, residing in Cambridge UPDATE: I found a newsletter for Robinson College online -- see page 7.) for jacking me back into shape:
It's nearly a week since the conversation on women died down in blogville . Rev. Mike has attempted to put a final nail in its coffin by dismissing it as a worthless conversation we shouldn't be having because it 'causes divisions'. I don't think that's a valid reason for dismissing anything; neither did St Paul, whose words Rev Mike has misappropriated in order to prove his point. What if we'd all refused to countenance Abolition? - that caused a lot of divisions and pain, but that was another conversation we should have had years earlier. Jesus never called us to the kind of candyfloss no-conflict harmony that poses as peace. That's shopping mall religion, not Christianity. Jesus called us to live for justice, and he promised that as we did so, we would find peace in the midst of conflict and pain. He called us to love one another, following his example: but Jesus himself got into a lot of conflict with stubborn religious people who wanted to keep everything nice, and calm, and free of change.I invite Maggie to go take another look at what I actually said there, perhaps with a different set of eyes, perhaps even giving me the benefit of the doubt with regard to my motives. Then I invite her to read the comments section and to observe that she appears to be the only person responding to this post who heard the things she says I said.
I know nothing about Maggie personally because I can't find anything personal about her on her site -- I may have missed it. (UPDATE: The newsletter linked above has her bio.) I'm about four months shy of 43, and as I indicated in my post, I've been immersed in these and related issues for at least 17 years, if not longer. That's not to invoke any authority on the matter, just to say that I haven't come to my opinions lightly and on the basis of youthful omniscience. For all I know, Maggie may be old enough to be my mother. (UPDATE: My mom is 63. The photo in the newsletter makes it quite clear Maggie's nowhere close to 63 years old.) Nonetheless, I have to wonder how she thinks being dismissive about my supposed dismissiveness was supposed to advance the conversation she says I dismiss, but for those of you who were reading in December, you know I'm certainly not the one to point fingers on that count.
Let me take her objections one by one and see if perhaps there might be a different way to have heard what I said:
I can't even begin to imagine the level of self-delusion that would be necessary for me to think I had the ability to put the final nail in the coffin of this issue, especially with the so-called "corpse" kicking the living daylights out of the lid.
I don't think the conversation is worthless, and I'm hard pressed to see where I said that. What I said was that it's a conversation that has been going on for quite some time and shows no signs of ever being resolved to anyone's satisfaction, and if the emerging church thinks they are going to get it right where my generation failed, I think they may be surprised to see how tough a row they have to hoe.
Vaya con Dios, hermanas y hermanos -- if it's division you want, rest assured you'll find it. However, while I seem to recall hearing of an eschatological dividing of sheep and goats, I don't recall any of us being given the task of doing the dividing. Or would it be misappropriating Paul's words in II Cor. 5:18-19 in this context, or the preface of my denomination's Confession of 1967 to suggest that "God's reconciling work in Jesus Christ and the mission of reconciliation to which he has called his church are the heart of the gospel in any age. Our generation stands in peculiar need of reconciliation in Christ."
If it were possible, I would invite Maggie to join Mr. Peabody, Sherman and me in the WABAC Machine to go back to the period of 1987-1990. There we would listen in on one of the many conversations in which I was involved regarding any number of contemporary, liberation-oriented theologies and hear how often the phrase, "inverting the pyramid" entered into these conversations.
The point there, of course, was that the purpose of challenging the existing structures of power was to invert them so that those who had historically been on the bottom would now be on the top. My response from my background as an engineer was always that resting on its vertex, a pyramid is an inherently unstable configuration -- theoretically possible in the realm of statistical thermodynamics, but with a low probability of remaining in that condition. In other words, the pyramid invariably topples over and destroys itself, or in some surreal existence like Salvador Dali's The Persistence of Memory, perhaps it dribbles into a new configuration where the former bottom now becomes the new vertex. In other words, the victim becomes the oppressor.
The real point I make here, though, is how easily a conversation about affirming the gifts of God in each other gravitates toward who gets to be in charge. And Maggie, if you can show me how invoking the doctrine of kenosis over an issue of power is "misappropriat[ing]" Paul, then I will repent in sackcloth and ashes. Figuratively, at least. (UPDATE: Maggie holds a Ph.D. in theology from Cambridge and could probably kick my butt theologically with one leg tied behind her. That being said, wrong as I may have been on all other counts, I'm gonna stand my ground on this one. However, just in case, I will have to Google "sackcloth." ;) )
"I made my peace with the question of women in ministry over 20 years ago. I pray that someday many women in ministry will make theirs."
- That was very well said, Rev. Mike. I never dreamed that the place where I would be told by other people that women can't be in ministry was from other students (never the professors)at a Bible College. For my first year and a half or so here, I hotly debated the issue with several men. I quickly became bitter and resentful. The precious calling that the Lord has placed on my life soon became about proving that "I COULD do it", even though I am a woman, when it had never been about that before. I would get into heated arguments with men who held the view that women shouldn't be in ministry, and one of them pointed a finger at me and called me a "Femi-Nazi". At that point I knew that I had let my own emotions and convictions get carried FAR far away into a very bitter and very hateful place.
So, to all women in ministry, I offer this advice: Choose your battles wisely. Wait, I take that back- AVOID battles on the subject at all costs. You never changed someone's position from theirs to your own through the means of a heated theological debate. Granted, there will be times when you may have a healthy discussion with someone on the subject, but ONLY go there if it is done with a gentle and PATIENT Spirit. Your own calling has already been affirmed within you..... it is through your own love and the example that you set that your calling will be affirmed in others who are skeptical. And you know what? You might NEVER win the skeptics over... but that's okay, because you are being faithful and you are doing what God has called you to do. Do not be quick to take offense... be gentle and loving and kind. Treat your Christian Brothers as brothers, with the same amount of respect that you deserve. Remember this: You are not a Feminist, you do not have a cause or an agenda. You have a Calling from the Most High God. Live out that calling on a daily basis through love and faithfulness, and at that point THE SKEPTICS will turn their heads and realize that they were wrong about you.
Posted by: at February 3, 2004 08:48 PMWoops! That comment was made by me, fyi. :-)
Posted by: Sarah Angeline at February 3, 2004 08:48 PMSarah, thanks for that comment. Hearing that from a woman gives it an authenticity I can't possibly provide. God bless you as you seek to be faithful to that high calling.
Posted by: Rev. Mike at February 3, 2004 09:03 PMI can't go back and look at the original article and the following comments because I'm on a slooooow dialup connection right now and it would take forever. From what I remember, you (Rev Mike)didn't really dismiss the issue, but the commenters that followed (except me) seemed to come to the consensus that it was a divisive issue and one not necessarily productive to discuss. So that's where I think Maggie got the idea that you were dismissing it.
Also, toward the end of the post there was that little piece in there that mentioned POWER and who has it. Ultimately though you ended up encouraging people to carefully work the issue out. -Remember I'm just going by memory here.-
Personally I was a little disappointed in the post and subsequent comments for two reasons.
First, you always seem to dance around controversy while being careful to stay out of the line of fire yourself. If things get too hot you seem to go silent. Being a Rev and all I can understand the desire to not get embroiled in some needless controversy but it can make for disappointing dialogue.
Second, when responding to the post my first reaction was something to the effect of, "let's do a little hermeneutics on it and see what the scripture has to say," but instead the comments went more in the direction of how unproductive their own conversations were. Also there was a link to another post that was frankly insulting to me since it seemed to be based on feminist theology. Overall, I was disappointed that there wasn't some rational follow-up. This issue seems particularly susceptible to distortion based on a person's political views...but I don't want to hear someone's liberal or conservative theology. I'm more interested in knowing just exactly what the scripture intends to say about this issue.
As I said before, I'm basically okay with the women in ministry thing - however, I'm not sure that I'm solid as to why I believe it's okay.
So, rightly or wrongly, that's how I remembered it.
-Jim.
I'm getting into this thread rather late... Now that it's been hashed out about allowing women to be 'under-shepards' of Christ's flock: What's the view upon allowing homosexuals to minister in the name of Jesus? Can this be a valid ministry, holding fast to the principles of integrity and veracity?
Posted by: Larry at February 4, 2004 05:54 AMMike, I'm a long time clergy gal in the same denomination as you are. Thanks for your comments.I'm "over" the issue of women's ordination, too. I live in the Deep Deep South so I have the validity of my call and ordination pushed in my face regularly, but I just go about my business. Here's a question: Why is it that homosexuality and women's ordination are linked together? I have an answer to this but I wonder what other people think about this.
Posted by: RevLapin at February 4, 2004 09:17 AMI'd have to disagree with the commenter above that says that the role of women in ministry has been hashed out. It hasn't. At least not here.
The danger of not establishing the rationale for why it is okay for women to be pastors, etc from a reasonable interpretation of scripture is that you then leave the door open to other issues like the aforementioned homosexual issue.
Ultimately the only thing we have to stand on is the authority of scripture. If we intentionally or unintentionally strip the scripture of its authority to embrace something simply because it is politically correct then we have opened the floodgates for other issues to be accepted.
My contention is this: If it's okay for women to be pastors, then let's take a careful look at scripture to see why it's okay. If we do our homework correctly then we can also apply the same test to the issue of homosexuals in the church and get a result that is glorifying to god and doctrinally correct.
So what I want to see from these Pastors who claim all this time in the ministry,etc is show us where in the scripture this is addressed. Heck, whip out your greek skills if you have to and show us what the Bible says.
-Jim.
One further note: I realize that we can have someone knowledgeable lay out the arguments and point to what scripture says -- and still have disagreements, but at least then we have some rationale to consider based on the same principles used for thousands of years to evaluate doctrinal statements. Some of you may be "Settled" on this issue and that's great, but unless you continually educate others on why you are settled then you'll continue to be questioned about it.
Although I'm writing here like I know all the answers, I don't. It's a complex issue that can't be fully addressed in a few posts like this. I've had to make some generalizations for the purpose of brevity.
Personally, I believe that it is okay for women to be Pastors and leaders in the church. As far as the homosexual issue -- that's a whole different discussion. Let's try to take care of one thorny issue at a time.
-Jim.
just came across your post via BeneDiction - goodness me, Mike, what you heard is not what I said either! Some of this conversation doesn't readily translate across the Atlantic, I think.
And, by the way, thanks for the flattering comments, but I'm way older than you! Maybe the wrinkles don't show in cyperspace? :)
I have followed this debate with some interest and if I may be permitted to add my tuppence worth, I would like to say that it is refreshing to see some of the comments made by the women in ministry. This debate has raged for a very long time, I have myself been in Licensed Ministry for a little more than 20 years now and the positions on the issue in the Anglican Communion are as entrenched as ever. I suspect that many, like myself, have no difficulty with the role of women in the diaconate, but do have problems in the priestly role of presidency at the Eucharist. I would also have to admit that I found myself hardening my view when confronted by the miltancy of some of those who sought ordination to the priesthood in the late 80's here in England by picketing ordination services up and down the country and haranguing anyone who dared to challenge their stance.
Since those days I have worked with a number of women priests (but not in the Eucharist) who have gone some way toward changing my views on this issue - not by arguing with me, but by demonstrating a depth of faith, and a commitment of spirit. Only one has the sort of qualifications your Cambridge correspondent boasts, and I could not match them either. That said, I have always worked on the principle that if God is in the pwe beside me I'm in the right place. If I can't feel him present, I shouldn't be there either. Sadly, the one occassion I have attended a Eucharist presided over by a woman, I did not feel God's presence. Possibly it was me that wasn't there in the right spirit, but I am still not ready to join the ranks of the "acceptors".
This has been at some personal cost as well, since the Church of England Ordinand Selectors do not look favourably upon anyone who isn't signed up to the full ordination of women.
Your original observations did not, to me at bleast suggest a dismissal of this sensitive subject, but rather a pragmatic acknowledgement of the depth of the divisions on it and the fact that the debate is, and should be, ongoing. It is not about sexism for most of us, it is about how we perceive God's will and the his divine purpose and role for us all. We are all ministers in Christ, it is a part of the Christian calling to be ministers one to another - something that seems to have been lost in the arguments and the name calling that has attended this debate.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss it - and apologies for the reception your comments got from this wing of the Anglican Communion.
Peace be with you.