After women bishops, what next?

I've not had time to follow the Synod debate on women bishop's much less to comment. However, I was having a discussion with some of our own folks on Thursday night, where I observed that the introduction of women bishops is by no means the end of the line, for there are explicit indications amongst the chief supporters of the consecration of women that our theology and liturgy are also in line for changes.

Just to give an idea of what this entails, I have simply cut and pasted the following from a paper on the WATCH website:

2. Language and theological issues:

God, Christology and the Church

The constant and uninterrupted use of language which is exclusive and used repeatedly can be intimidating or even aggressive: Almighty God, Lord of Power and Might, Everlasting Father, Dear Lord and Father of Mankind. Intimidation and aggression do not give life to the people of God called to grow in wisdom and understanding. We need to use the full range of biblical images for God, the tender and nurturing as well as the powerful. Yet we must recognise that our growing includes encouraging fresh expressions of language for each new generation. The gospel always has a reforming, reinterpreting edge to it. “Almost all of the language used in the Bible to refer to God is metaphor, with the possible exception of holy...There is no point in pontificating what metaphors like “God as father” ought to mean. If God metaphors become problematic for a significant group of people, it is pointless and patronising to tell them they ought to understand differently”. (What Language Shall I Borrow” by Brian Wren). God reveals the Godself to us throughout the scriptures as mother, father, friend, love, wind, fire. And for some God is more than static noun: God becomes dynamic verb. We may leave words behind entirely: “The more I walk with God, the less words about God will do” (John Spong). The best God metaphors are those that move us deeply and enable us to encounter and be encountered by the dynamic dance of incandescent love that Christian experience names as Trinity. 

Interesting to see a quote there from John Spong, someone whom no less a personage than Jeffrey John has dismissed as lacking any Christian credibility.

Now it would be wrong to suggest - and I am not suggesting - that all supporters of women bishops think this way. But the point is that some do, and that they have clearly signalled their intentions, and that therefore this is the next big area with which the Church will have to deal, alongside (of course) homosexuality.

As they say, "Discuss".

John P Richardson
11 July 2010



Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

So what, if we call the Spirit 'She'?

What does it mean if we call the Spirit ‘She’, as some are now suggesting?

One argument seems to be that it doesn’t mean anything —that since God is ‘beyond gender’ we might as well call the Spirit ‘She’ as ‘He’, so long as we don’t call the Spirit ‘It’ because this sounds ‘impersonal’.

There are, however, problems with this. Specifically, if God is beyond gender, then it does not matter, either, if we call God ‘She’. Similarly, within the godhead, although we may traditionally refer to the First Person of the Trinity as ‘the Father’, and the Second as ‘the Son’, it would not matter if we used the more neutral ‘Parent’ and ‘Child’, and, given the theological understanding we are expressing by calling the Spirit ‘She’, it would be entirely appropriate to call them, at least on occasion ‘Mother’ and ‘Daughter’.

Some would dismiss this suggestion as mischievous. However, we must ask ourselves on what grounds we might resist it if God is truly ‘beyond gender’ and our language for God must avoid mis-statements about God’s nature.

It might be argued that the language for the First and Second persons of the Trinity is ‘fixed’ by the biblical use of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’. But if we can remain with this terminology without distorting our understanding of the godhead, why can we not similarly remain with the Scriptural (Jn 16:13) and traditional (credal) use of ‘He’ for the Spirit?

If the response is that we must, somehow, ‘balance’ our language by the use of ‘She’, however, we are back to our first objection, namely that at least with regard to God considered per se, we can (and perhaps must) use ‘She’ of God as well as God’s Spirit.

If, on the other hand, the response is that the language we use for the Third Person of the Trinity can differ from that which we use for the First and Second Persons, we must ask whether we are expressing thereby a difference in the being of the Spirit. Is the Spirit ‘She’ in a way that the Son is not ‘She’ and the Father is not ‘She’? If the answer is ‘no’, then we are back to the second objection, that we can just as appropriately call Father and Son ‘Mother’ and ‘Daughter’ without doing an injustice to the qualities of God. If the answer is ‘yes’, however, then we have to consider in what sense is the Spirit ‘She’ in a way that differs from Father and Son.

My own suggestion is that the whole use of ‘She’, as currently proposed and loosely practised is incoherent, dangerous and potentially heretical.

The test must be in our liturgy. Can we (and should we, as some are advocating) call on God as our Mother? More specifically in this instance, could we, without qualms, change the Nicene Creed to say of the Spirit, “She has spoken through the prophets”? Is the only resistance to this our prejudice and inconsistency? Would this be liberating, or would it be disastrous?

If, however, we should not do this, then we should not suggest that is does not matter whether we call the Spirit, or the godhead ‘He’ or ‘She’. If it matters, it truly matters.

Revd John P Richardson
18 June 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

"Let's call the Spirit she for a change": Bishop of Sherborne (elect)

Er, we'll get back to you on this, bishop.

Personally, if he did this in a service while I was there, I'd walk out.

John Richardson
16 June 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.