How not to flourish

Hidden Figures is an inspiring and challenging film which deals with a trio of African American women who work for NASA in the early 1960’s. It documents their struggles to thrive in their chosen professions. Through their eyes we explored three issues: segregation between blacks and whites, women being taken seriously in a highly technical profession and how competence and achievement transcend gender and race.

Within NASA there were segregated facilities ranging from toilets, lunch rooms, coffee pots, offices and libraries. As one character rose in prominence she heard a recurring phrase, “But, but, there’s no protocol for a woman to attend that meeting”, Another  faced a gender and  racial barrier to her getting the respect and education she needed to be an engineer. Another faced a refusal to be taken as a supervisor of workers of all races rather than just African Americans.

A key truth we were asked to confront was that when you segregate based on basic human attributes, when we deny people the opportunity to participate based on basic human attributes; we will never be at our best as humans. Our achievements will always be less than they could be.

Most oppressive systems try to hide behind the idea of “separate but equal”. Segregated facilities are not equal facilities. Equality means having access to the same things and resources regardless of where they were provided.  In the case of the American South, people could argue that society offered equality because it educated African American children in their own schools just as Whites had theirs.  They had their own section on buses, restaurants, theatres; what more did they want?

In Hidden Figures a character goes to the “white” section of the library to find a book on computer programming. When challenged that she should be in the “coloured” section of the library, she replied that “the book I need isn’t in that part of the library”.  That’s what they want: equality of access to everything white people took for granted.

Segregation turned my thoughts to the current debate in the church about Bishop Philip North and his decision to step down as the Bishop of Sheffield designate. The row started when Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral Oxford called out the Bishop of Sheffield designate to either quit his role in “The Society”, an organisation committed to traditional Catholicism within the CofE (promoting a theology that women cannot be Bishops or Priests) or decline the nomination of Sheffield because he would have to treat 1/3 of his clergy as non-priests based on their gender.

In 1994 the law of the land changed to allow women to be priests. In 2014 the law of the land changed to allow women to be bishops. In making the latter law there was  a recognition that no longer would women be excluded from full ministry in the church. At  the same time there was a recognition that a minority of lay people and clergy couldn’t theologically accept this and would now feel vulnerable and would need protection in order to still feel part of the church and “flourish”.

The Church came up with 5 guiding principles to attempt this accommodation and flourishing  which you can see here:

Why do these provisions need to be made? You can see here the Society’s reasoning for why women are a “problem” for them:

While the Church must accept women’s ordained ministry as deacons, priests and bishops those who oppose this are to be seen as holding a theological position of equal validity and are to be equally accommodated. Those who hold those positions must be allowed to have the least interactions with ordained women in authority. to aid this the church laid on an alternative hierarchy to care for them without any added cost or obligation to them. In short they are allowed to remain separate but equal.

Bishop North is often described as a gifted preacher, evangelist, advocate for the poor and all around great candidate to be a key leader in the Church. But he is also on the board of the Society which actively promulgates the doctrine that women should not be ordained as priests or consecrated as bishops.

The church concocted these principles while trying to square a circle.  That’s why we focus on all he has to offer as a bishop, as a leader, as a friend of the poor.  In order to accept women’s ministry in general and to encourage it he must see women not as priests but as deacons and leaders. Increasingly we speak of clergy in terms of leadership. We measure this by attendance numbers, income and busyness. As long as women’s ministry is couched in terms of leadership they are just another bunch of parish leaders, doing good things for the gospel.

The wheels only come off when sacraments and authority is raised. Don’t ask him to receive communion from these leaders or to join in their consecration when they become bishops. As long as he can stick to leadership functions he can blur the gender/priest issue. In this way he can flourish as a leader, those who oppose women’s ordination can flourish and those he works with can flourish as leaders. If we stick to priestly ministry being about leadership and production, we’re fine. But the ordination service doesn’t talk about us being leaders. It talks about us being watchmen and shepherds and pastors and protectors of doctrine and people who offer sacraments.  We lead, but in a way that is hard to measure.

By all accounts, including from women who know his ministry, he is very supportive of women’s ministry, encourages vocations and wants to be a resource to all his clergy in the church’s mission to share Christ with the nation. I guess that means he will pray with women clergy, worship with them, encourage their ministries but will not he won’t ordain them, he will not lay on hands at the consecration of women bishop and he can’t receive communion consecrated by a woman. Obviously there is a conflict in holding that position while trying to also be a Bishop to all in his care in the Diocese.

When we share the good news of Christ, part of that invitation is to join the Church, the body of Christ. We already struggle to provide credibility in that invitation. People assume that we exclude  whole categories of people because they are somehow impaired in a way that is not recognised outside the walls of the church. I feel that whatever balancing act Bishop Philip is doing in his head will just look silly to someone not inoculated with the church. and it looks silly to those of us who are.

And this is what brings us back to this issues raised in Hidden Figures.  Segregation always diminishes us and our efforts to be genuinely human. And people spot segregation very quickly.

Bishop North will always be in a position that will always be a problematic one for him; he can’t stop women being in ordained ministry but he can refuse to participate in ordaining them and recognising them as priests.

That refusal to participate, that refusal which requires the protection of five principles and an expensive alternative structure of church hierarchy is a form of self-imposed segregation.  This “mutual flourishing” people keep talking about is an impossibility as long as it is underpinned by a policy of separate but equal. Two track institutions never work. And when someone is segregated they are, by definition, impaired.

By self-segregating and refusing to be in sacramental communion with all his clergy, Bishop North surely needs to accept that by choosing those positions he cannot be all that he wants to be i.e. a Diocesan Bishop in a national church where women are ordained. He will always have difficulty in assuring those outside the Church they can have confidence in his commitment to their flourishing as a potential Lord and an influential presence in  Sheffield.

I’m sure that Bishop Philip would have been a fine bishop in the practice of leadership and local mission and pastoral care and will work well with others in all those things that don’t require sacraments. But in humility and honesty there needs to be an admission that while he remains a member of “The Society” and holds his view on the ordination of women there would always be a genuine disconnection between him and his clergy.  In the end, participating in separate but equal practices will always impair him hat impairment will always be self-inflicted.

4 thoughts on “How not to flourish

  1. David Herbert

    I must go and see Hidden Figures. Ruth was recommending it too.
    I’m not sure that Bishop Philip is against the ordination of women. I rather think that he is against the ordination of women NOW. He might be in a waiting game, waiting for the rest of the church to be ready. Nor do I think he is against women priests. Women priests I know in Blackburn speak of his affirmation of them. I know it looks absurd from outside the church, but then doesn’t the gospel? Not that I share Bishop Philip’s position, though I wish I shared his passion for those who are the victims of the world’s circumstances – those who so badly need some good news.

  2. newnortherner Post author

    I think you are right, to a degree about Philip North, that is if all the pieces fit together he would agree with the final picture on women’s ordination. However this is having and eating cake. Rome and the Orthodox church won’t ordain women in our lifetime (or my children’s). Its a bit like nuclear disarmament. I’d love to see Trident scrapped but there is a little bit of me relieved that it is highly unlikely to happen. He is a major player in an organisation who believe women should not be ordained because they are women. It’s a bit like saying “I’m the branch chair of my local Labour group but I do vote Tory”. In that kind of group, you are in or you are out but you can’t be agnostic.

    I don’t think I said he was against women in ministry who are priests but he does not recognise the priesthood of those women in ministry. That was my point about him being able to work with them as long as it was on the level of leader rather than priesthood. He is playing the Renewal and Reform game where we are parish leaders and couched in terms of outcomes and metrics. Leaders I can work with, women priests I can’t make. I guess I would put it back to you: what if white leaders in South Africa played the same waiting game “until everyone is ready to accept this equality”?

    I left out a bit in my blog about how I feel in my RC/Anglican school on the days we have Mass where I can’t receive or consecrate (though I am allowed to bless). I know everyone really likes me, appreciates me, encourages me etc. But at the Mass I am a bystander because I’m not a real priest. It feels okay when I don’t think at that level but when I do I feel a sadness.

    As for his passion for the poor, he doesn’t need to be a bishop to change the world in the 10 square feet around him. In fact, he would accomplish a lot more by not being a bishop.

    We are upset because we talk about him in the same breathlessness we used to reserve for alpha or Steve Chalke or the Toronto blessing. We feel we’ve lost an opportunity to finally make that breakthrough in society. But it won’t happen because all his great chat about poverty gets drowned out in the world around us by the fact that he has a hang up about women (their view). They aren’t going to stick around to hear the arguments and nuances.

    The absurdity you speak about comes from the absurdity that we believe the church can be of one mind across the board. The only real orthodoxy is Jesus is Lord and under that we all have our idea of what flourishing is. But we’ve trained the world outside to believe that we are one on all these things and we look like fools when we try to maintain that when we clearly aren’t. Instead, like we see in Acts where the rising cohort of gentile christians make their peace with the declining cohort of jewish christians, when we speak from “Jesus is Lord” the whole conversation changes and new possibilities begin.

    Thanks for the stimulating comment!

  3. Graham Turner

    I think you propose a very good case that has much strength and merit to it. However, my problem with this issue, and many other matters in the church, is not so much the issue itself, but the manner in which the dialogue is carried out. I do have a view on the matter; I very much welcome, support and encourage the ordination of women at every level. While I have come to a conclusion on this subject, I know there is always the possibility that I am wrong. Both sides of the present divide have coherent arguments; the positions they hold are not irrational nor untheological.
    I have good friends on both sides – some for well over thirty years. I have therefore seen the pain many have been through when the decisions of the church have been delayed, frustrated or have gone against their stance. But, of course, these two groups do not have a monopoly on such hurt. Being determined to remain strong friends with women and men from both sides of the divide is not a pain-free venture either. Some of my long-term friendships have been threatened. The important spiritual task for each of us here is to learn what to do with our pain. The saying is true, if we do not deal with our own pain we will always pass it on to others.
    I do not always agree with our Archbishop, Justin Welby, on his managerial approach to the leadership, but I do believe his instinct to hold open listening conversations across the church on matters of human sexuality was right, even if the outcome was rather limited. I think we need to go further. I believe we should actively seek out, develop and nurture strong friendships with people who strongly disagree with us. You see, I have to listen to my friends, if I allow them to be truly friends. I cannot simply dismiss their arguments or make caricatures of them.
    I once heard about some trainee monks from the East (I cannot remember from which faith tradition) who, as part of their training, had to debate with another student on a topic they fundamentally and strongly disagreed on. But throughout all the time they did this, they had to smile. If one of the trainees stopped smiling, the supervising monk declared that he had lost the debate.
    The danger of any serious debate is that we invest our egos in it. Once we do this I think the whole venture is doomed as we all become increasingly affronted and offendable.
    So thank you to all those who have disagreed with me fundamentally at times, yet still have remained my friends – without you I am lost.

    1. newnortherner Post author

      You are right Graham. Our conversations are always under the cross as the sign of how we give ourselves to one another than our ideas. However I do think the reality of instituitons is that it is one thing to disagree on women’s ministry and to place myself under the authority of someone who sees it as problematic and who bleongs to group which actively seeks to oppose it. Of course the answer is for the church not to have anyone under anyone else’s authority. Your monk story proves the point: who is he to decide who has won or lost a debate. How we disagree is critical. But if Bishop Phillip feels a bit put out, at least he hasn’t had to endure what Jeffrey John has (who also lives a different way but by the rules). Read up about his latest rejection and you’ll see that at least liberals just wring their hands and keen whereas “tradtionalists” like to take the ball home. My pain is that we just confirm to the world that we are pretty irrelevant….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s