Silencing the Women in the Church of England.

Yesterday Rod Thomas, head of the conservative evangelical Reform group and prominent member of Anglican Mission in England was announced as the next Bishop of Maidstone - the "headship" bishop promised during the process toward consecrating women as bishops in the CofE. He will offer oversight to Anglican churches who do not feel able to accept the authority of a woman bishop Quite a number of women and men in the Church of England have lamented this move over the past 24 hours, fearing that it only serves to entrench difference and continues to support a theological position which is inimical to the flourishing of women within our denomination.

I do not particularly want to talk about that. I want instead to talk about the response to that lament. Because in conversations on social media where women have expressed concern about this appointment, there has been a distinct backlash.

The first theme of this backlash goes something like this: "Rod Thomas is a Christian brother who holds sincere beliefs and has always been gracious to me despite our difference". Good - I am delighted to hear it. However, what is causing me distress is not the sincerity of Rod Thomas' beliefs, but the consequences of those beliefs. Headship theology has a significant impact upon women and girls. Rod Thomas may well be extremely gracious to colleagues and acquaintances with whom he differs, but the theology he publicly chooses to promote creates churches with a culture where women cannot grow fully to maturity as Christian leaders. Even if not called to leadership, women and girls under the authority of "headship" churches learn to distrust their own voice, power and agency - learning that it is God's plan that their own authority is subjected to that of their brothers or else things will go badly wrong. Of course, where a woman is a gifted leader and cannot find a way to exercise that gift in an open and healthy way, the risk is that she will end up expressing her gift in unhealthy ways, thus reinforcing the notion that women are not fit to lead!  Her other option is to leave and find a congregation who will support her flourishing, but this again can be a costly and wounding course of action. I know - I was that woman. So Rod Thomas may be a very sincere man indeed, and a delight to share a cuppa with at Diocesan events, but I would not wish my daughters to grow up in a church under his authority or shaped by his theology of gender.

The second theme of the backlash is that we should be more cognisant of the pain of our conservative Evangelical sisters and brothers who feel marginalized within their church. And I do feel sorry for their pain. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I will pray for them, listen to them, celebrate common ground with them, eat with them, worship with them... But I will not cease to exist for them. It would also be good if our ConEvo brothers and sisters would genuinely listen to some of the stories of woundedness from our side too. Just because there are soon to be three women consecrated Bishop does not mean that all the pain women have endured for decades and centuries in the church miraculously disappear. Nor does it mean that gender equality has been achieved. Levels of young vocations amongst women are much lower than amongst their male counterparts. Female incumbents and senior staff are greatly outnumbered by their male counterparts. There is much to be done - many barriers to be dismantled - many injustices to be righted. I feel for my conservative Evangelical friends' pain, but the pain of the many women denied equality and encouragement in the church remains a big issue too.

Lastly, the backlash consists of a gently reproving suggestion that we should be "better behaved". Our emotions, our anger, our lament are just too uncomfortable for others to bear. Stop making a fuss. Calm down, dear. Count your blessings... You have women bishops - the gender debate is over. This was part of the deal. Quit rocking the boat! But was it? What the cost of women bishops the fact that women could nevermore express their dissatisfaction at inequalities in the church? Was the cost that we could never share our pain at the appointment of Bishops who deny either our sacramental efficacy or spiritual authority? Is it truly that the Church has thrown its daughters the scraps from the table and we should be grateful? Or like the encounter between Jesus and the Syro-Phonecian woman (to which, of course I am alluding) will our brothers in the Church do us the honour of truly listening, truly allowing our voices to change the way they are, truly treating us as equals. Or will they continue to silence the women of the Church of England?

Reply to Giles Fraser - Debating The Redundant Devil

Being a few years younger than my colleague, Giles Fraser, it is not surprising that the films which form my cultural landscape are a little different. When he thinks of the devil, his first thoughts return to The Godfather. I, on the other hand, turn first to the  dark and classic film he mentions at the end: The Usual Suspects. The same line Giles quotes has stayed with me from that movie: it has none of the opulent drama of the inital Godfather scene Giles describes, but is memorable instead for its chilling simplicity as the lead character says: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".

Giles' brilliant column this week discusses what he feels we as a church lose when we do not explicitly name the devil in our baptism liturgy. By nature, a more conservative (with a small c) character, I share his sense of loss at this change. And he does challenge me to reconsider all aspects of how I conduct infant baptism - how much do I collude with those who regard baptism as "a nice middle-class naming ceremony" and how much do I use the opportunity to speak eternal truths and preach the gospel? Tough and timely questions for all who conduct infant baptisms on a regular basis.

However, I do think it is helpful to remove this language from our liturgy for two main reasons. The first is because most members of our society simply do not believe in a personal devil any more. When I prepare a baptism family using the current rite,  I sometimes joke that the liturgy was written by someone who had been reading a bit too much Lord of the Rings, and there is often a relieved giggle around the room. The dramatic language may be beautiful and poetic and contain great truths, but it is describes something which is unrecognizable - without hefty translating - to your average new parent. You could argue that this should not be the case and should be resisted, but I don't think the best place to begin a discussion on how to follow Jesus is a theological debate on the reality of Satan. However, these families do understand evil because they have seen it. They have seen it in their families, in their workplaces, in their communities and on their television screens. To return for a moment to The Usual Suspects, perhaps they may have been tricked into thinking the devil doesn't exist, but they can still recognize his works. What's more, they desperately don't want their child either to contribute to that evil or be harmed by it. If that is your hope for your child, bringing them to Jesus is a brilliant place to start.

The second reason is that this dramatic language helps disguise the reality of evil in our lives. Dramatic words and the dramatic film scene Giles describes make evil seem obvious and huge and other. But evil is mundane and life sapping and all too ordinary in all our experience. Evil is apathy about suffering and selfishness and conflict and abuse of others and a hundred other things I have encountered this week, if not in the past 24 hours. Perhaps we should stop hiding behind flowery liturgy and ask people plainly how willing they are to renounce evil with their shopping lists and energy consumption and by who they talk to at the school gate. THAT would be truly challenging and I hereby throw down the gauntlet to the liturgical commission!

In a church near where I live they recently uncovered a Doom painting, with Christ seated in glory and the righteous led to one side to be with him in glory. The unrighteous are led to the other side to eternal torment, vividly depicted with flames and demons. It is a remarkable example of basic catechesis from a pre-literate age. But cultural changes mean that this painting, despite its value in many different ways, is not used commonly to teach people the faith today. And cultural changes mean that removing the devil from our baptism liturgy, whilst sad in many ways, is when all is considered, helpful as we try to proclaim faith in Jesus.