by Stephen Parsons
This blog post is written at a time when we are witnessing some deeply destructive divisions in the Church. In surveying some of these dividing issues, I am certainly not the first person to notice how many of the contemporary points of profound conflict among Christians have links to issues of human psychology. The classic theological conflicts of the past – the filioque debate or the question of whether the second person of the Trinity is of ‘like substance’ to the Father or of the ‘same substance’ as the Father – were of a different order. The winning side in this latter debate was the ‘same substance’ cohort. Their victory is written into the so-called Nicene Creed, an elaborated version of which we still use today after 1800 years. Another debate which caused bloodshed and acrimony at the time, the Filioque controversy, has settled into an uneasy truce, with the Western Church adopting it and the Eastern Churches with the Anglicans of Scotland opting to leave out the word from their versions of the Creed. In summary, Christians are still divided but the things which separate them now are quite different.
What are the issues that currently divide Christians, even those that belong to the same historical groupings/denominations? If we dig into church history, we encounter many debates and divisions, such as those dividing Arminians from Calvinists. Today we find, in some circles, lively debates centring on the attempt to create a normative statement to explain how Jesus’ death on the Cross allows his followers to obtain salvation. Such theological debates are still important, but the topics that today are really causing the greatest passion, as well as division among Christians, seem to have less connection with purely theological matters. My contention here is to claim that by making some church issues, like the ministry of women, of ‘first order’ status, they are given a centrality which does not belong to them. To argue for or against the ministry of women in terms of priesthood, ministry and leadership is surely not a key matter affecting our ultimate eternal destiny. No Christian should wish to place another Christian who had another view on women’s ministry into ‘Room 101’. And yet the contemporary debates about women (and the LGBT divisions) seem to inherit some of the passion of the mobs that plagued the streets of Constantinople in the 6th century, killing rivals from another theological position. Will the Church ever be able to flourish when we anathematise each other with such passion over these second order issues?
Perhaps I should summarise my observations about the discussions on the role of women in the Church in this way. Those who debate in this arena on both sides seem to derive much, if not most of their energy to sustain their position from their personal psychology. In other words, we are normally witnessing more in the way of passion than a rehearsing of the traditional theological debating points. Over the years, I have listened to the arguments from Scripture about the need for women to accept subservience in church matters and keep silent in church. Then there are the other stock arguments from the Orthodox and Roman traditions about the witness of 2000 years of male priesthood, as well as the evident maleness of Jesus’ original band of apostles. All these arguments have been rehearsed countless times. As far as the Anglican Communion is concerned, an unsatisfactory truce has been declared, and two integrities, representing both sides of the debate are allowed a place at the table of normative Anglicanism.
My position in this debate is to side strongly with the cause of women’s ministry. I nevertheless regret the fact that we have these deep damaging divisions fed, I believe, by the passions of human psychology rather than reason and theological debate. I do not propose to raise further issues that surround the LGBT debate. I merely observe that it is hard to even think about, for example, homophobia in the Church and not recognise that personal psychological issues on both sides are embedded in this debate. Many of the issues which are brought up in discussing the place of women in Church draw on similar human passions connected with human identity. Each side in such a debate will draw much from the individual’s personal psychological story while trying to wrap it up in the calm rational language of theological discourse.
As a supporter of the cause for women in ministry at every level, I draw attention to the way that there have been many parallel attempts to downgrade the role and status of women in the secular world. As a school leaver who worked for a short while as a hospital porter, I found that the women I was working alongside were being paid substantially less for the same job. The unfair treatment of women, then and now, could be summarised as an institutional misogyny. Misogyny is a word which covers a range of attitudes towards women, some involving strong emotions of hatred for the female sex. The word is also used to indicate a low-level irrational dislike by men for the opposite sex. Misogyny and its associated feelings creeps into the arguments and divisions about the place of women’s ministry in the Church. Whether we are aware of it or not, misogyny is never far away from the discussions about the role of women in church and society. Because misogyny is a feeling it draws its energy from irrational roots, making it a poor guide to justice and clear reasoning. Emotional energy will always be a part of any debate but a reliance on such primal energy is dangerous for the cause of truth. We need to admit that such feelings can act as a distorting lens for any issue under debate. Identifying misogyny (and homophobia) should alert us to the probable emergence of passion and primal feeling. These so quickly distort and destroy calm and rational process. Arguing from a position of passion and feeling makes it likely that we have gone beyond a position of compromise or reconciliation. The supporters of feminism and female leadership draw on their own resources of passionate argumentation. It sometimes seems that neither side in the debate has any incentive to give way to the other, and so we are not likely to see the argument ever resolved this side of the Second Coming.
What are the classic reasons given to explain the appearance of misogyny in contemporary society, one which feeds and encourages the stance, one seeks to deny women an honoured and full place in church ministry? It will not be a surprise to see that I neither have the space nor the expertise to answer such a mammoth question. But amid all the material on the topic, there is one fascinating observation from the psychology literature which throws unexpected light on the male-female struggle. I am not sure of the origin of the psychologically based observation that I am attempting here to summarise. Books on feminism and Christianity mostly disappeared in my great book purge of recent weeks. The argument that I want to rehearse here, which I found very compelling when I read it, starts with the insight that many men feel a strong need to control the women in their lives. They find it difficult to accept them as equals or, worse still, stronger in some important respects. Women seem to have access to dimensions of emotional power which most men do not have, and many men are afraid of it and jealous of that power.
The fact that the male sex is biologically able to exert physical power over the female sex is an important given in the ‘battle of the sexes’ being played out in our contemporary culture. This potential for physical dominance is acted out in many domestic situations, and it is suggested as many as 25% male/female relationships see violence as being part of the relationship. One factor that is often overlooked and may provide a key to understanding why men feel a need to physically dominate their female partners so commonly, comes from a universal male vulnerability. Every boy was once a small defenceless creature, utterly dependent on a woman for food, safety and the physical touch needed for survival. In other words, every male child was once totally dominated and dependent on a female. Men can never escape that memory of physical enmeshment with their mother. For many men, determined to fulfil the male role of being the one in control and a powerful creature able to dominate and exercise power over others, this is an intolerable memory. Might we suggest that violence and the mistreatment of women is a kind ‘revenge’ against the female embedded in one’s memory and who was once in total control. This insight makes a lot of sense as it seems to explain that strange combination of fear, worship and resentment towards women that exists in many men as they fail to produce rational patterns of thought and attitude when debating the role of women in the church. For that debate to take place properly there needs to be a far better capacity for the sexes to engage with these psychological primal issues. I fear that many men, even in the Church, will be unwilling to make this journey to face their vulnerability in this way.
I’d like to hear what women think
I think Stephen’s right.
I recall a laywoman, a noted evangelical theologian, telling me how a male priest had accosted her re women’s ministry at an evangelical conference. The man grew so irate at her reasoned responses that he began swearing and screaming obscenities at her. He had to be pulled away by onlookers. She was very shaken, and said she realised what deep-seated, often unreasoning opposition female clergy were up against.
I witnessed a situation where two women had every good reason to feel falsely and unfairly accused of sexual immorality. Very cruel and crude words were used. Witness evidence was plain, compelling and overwhelming. But a male GAFCON leader happily brushed the crisis under the carpet. Suspicion now falls on the same leader failing to address much more serious female abuse. Does it often take concealment of rape or child abuse to be exposed, before evil Anglican leaders are finally identified, trapped and exorcised?
Extraordinary. I can’t imagine you think that’s typical though?
Any chance of learning which conference and which year?
Thanks Steve
The attitude of men towards women runs far deeper in society and in our psyche for hundreds of years. After all women were brought up as children generally by the mother who controlled them as much as boys. Perhaps both men and women want to take revenge on other women in authority. Women priests and bishops are becoming more popular so I guess will this be seen this as a weakness in the church?
Have women leaders sometimes broken down ‘old boy’ networks covering up BAH? Ann Widdecombe or others have inferred how-12 men were good enough for the Lord’s own initial leadership team-that’s an angle with logic. But lots of abuse has been uncovered by women victims, witnesses and leaders. Senior male leaders, or clusters of them, have covered up BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment) on an epic scale.
DAVID McCLAY (Anglican Bishop of Down and Dromore) helps me better understand toxic male leadership. He cynically covered up savagely violent ill-treatment of two out of five 2015-2016 Anglican trainees in my New Wine course year group.
A New Wine tutor accused us of sexual misconduct in foul language. The first incident saw a prof-medic-teacher all witness a student (a middle-aged businessman/farmer) cry for ages in my living room. The shocked and shaking man described feeling accused of adultery, and told “Any of us might fancy a change of breasts”.
The prof and I were astounded, and wondered if could really be true. Just weeks later, however, the same New Wine tutor accused me of sexual misconduct (with the professor). David McClay has failed to protect the victims and deliver justice, even in the face of the most compelling evidence of savage bullying and harassment.
The professor-teacher-medic-farmer, all faithful communicant Anglicans, left Down and Dromore Diocese in disgust. KRWLAW (a Belfast legal firm) also express concerns relating to David McClay in an online post: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’. Can David McClay never accept the need to address savage Anglican bullying-harassment-abuse and its cover up?
Multiple Belfast locals have now drawn my attention to the acute and sinister disappearance of yet another ex-New Wine student. ‘Olive Tree Media’ posted this 12 mins YouTube film on 30.1.22:-‘Karl Faase interviews Joe Turner for Jesus the Game Changer Season 2’-.
But was Joe Turner long vanished, from the parish website and Facebook pages, when this promotional film (gushing with positive emotion) was posted? And can David McClay stand over the opening image sequence, featuring hooded men in balaclavas with armalites? It looks more like a Hamas film than a promotional film about Church of Ireland mission!
Should Bishop David McClay be asked to retire and resign? That’s a question I am posing for Archbishop John McDowell, Irish Anglican Primate. There’s also a problem for the Irish Primate himself, if he cares to follow Church news. The Welsh and English Primates have both had to acutely depart recently in disgrace. Today’s Anglicans are much less tolerant of toxic masculinity, or bullying-harassment-abuse cover ups by Bishop Clay-Foot & Co.
The church (of all stripes) is significantly more queerphobic and sexist than any workplace in my own experience. It’s becoming more and more difficult to enjoy the freedoms and equity and equality and being seen, heard, valued, loved, listened to, as a queer woman in my own life, to then chose to pass through the doors of (any) church to become at best a second class citizen and at worst experience combinations of sexism, misogyny, queerphobia, coercion, bullying and ostracism.
These things (like racism and ableism too) are only “second order issues” to those so privileged by their white/cis/her/male/ educated/middle class status that they have literally no skin in the game.
For those of us that do, toxic theology and behaviours from churches are traumatising.
As James Baldwin said – “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.”
Too often the church reversed victim and offender and pretends that those who deny my full humanity and right to exist are “persecuted” by my opposing views.
Don’t let privilege blind you to the abuse of power going on here
Stephen’s original post raises some interesting points about the male/female dynamic. And yes, more attention needs to be paid to what is going on at a psychological level. Take complementarian theology for example and how it advocates for a form of toxic masculinity. I think a lot of the push back comes from a combination of fear of change and a fear of what people will have to confront about themselves. Western Christianity seems woefully equipped to help people deal with things which require honest self reflection and doing the deeper work of integration and healing. We have focussed so much on theology and doctrine but often at the expense of the human psyche and heart. I do fear unless this emphasis changes the current state of affairs will only get worse
That’s an interesting point! Science, and lots of other disciplines, have ceased to just be about memorising vast amounts of data, to pass exams or get degrees. Ability to interpret or analyse information is vital, especially in an age where the internet means the volume of data feels almost infinite. Churches sometimes fail to see the wood for the trees. Anglicanism is almost silent on the pro-life cause, yet a lot of anger and frustration is vented on the same-sex relationship question. There is another paradox with child and adult protection, where there are now reams of diocesan procedures and processes, yet we see countless cases where KCJ-DARVO-NDA are at work and unchallenged.
I remember when both boys and girls were part of one thing (it didn’t matter that we sometimes played different games), my parents considered themselves part of one thing, I believe neighbours and teachers were also like that, something like it was in our novels and entertainments.
After that (if you’ll pardon me going multidenominational) a materialist pope told us all, that in order to counter “communism” in politics, we had to apportion completely separate and different forms of lives (by definition) to the males & females (beyond the few “obvious” things).
The faction that felt guilty (but has never admitted it) at having spurned Lloyd-Jones then fastened on this as excuse to prove themselves “non sectarian”.