"Not Equal Yet" and the culture wars

Inviting people to the recent “Not Equal Yet” event hosted by “Women and the Church” (WATCH) the organisation posted a blog which said,

“As I was writing this post at end of February, I found myself distracted by a BBC article telling me that the Tate brothers (Andrew and Tristan) were heading to America. In case you don’t know they are, these are two men who have made their fortune through the online radicalisation of boys and young men into acts of violence against women. They were arrested on charges of rape and human trafficking and their charges have not been dropped, yet they flew to America on their private jet.

“How is it possible that two men have made their fortune through the promotion of the oppression of women? Why are they free to fly when charges of rape and trafficking haven’t been dropped? I can tell you the answer, because it is ‘Not equal yet.’

It is still a man’s world.

It is still a man’s Church.

“In this article, I want to focus on the issues of gender equality in the Church of England, but the Tate brothers are relevant because there is not a great divide between Church and society when it comes to oppression. Any institution that supports the oppression of women (or anyone else) will be automatically supporting the ongoing oppression of women (or anyone else) in the world.”

After expatiating on what is described as, “The Theology of Taint,” the article continued,

“This institutional acceptance is one that supports the thinking that women’s bodies pollute and defile sacred spaces. It is suggestive that the woman is other – lesser human. It reminds me of how those who contracted leprosy were treated – dirty, defiled, infected, sub-human.

This thinking is real thinking.

This is not theology.

This is deep misogyny”

At the event itself, The Bishop of Croydon, Dr Rosemarie Mallett, a self-confessed “instigator” or “architect” of the “Five Guiding Principles” with regard to the ministry of female bishops developed these themes. She said that The Principles, “help to reinforce” the “…unequal and iniquitous gendered culture of the current Church of England”. Dr Mallett added that the culture was part of “an underlying trend” within “wider society” that, “continues to harbour paternalistic and patriarchal perspectives of the ways societies, institutions, and gendered relationships should be ordered” of which, again Andrew Tate, the “manosphere” and the “… toxic masculinity and male rage and anger at rejection…” depicted in the recent Netflix series “Adolescence” were products.

She described traditionalists holding “viewpoints” in respect of which there was “ossification”.

In her view, “The cumulative effect of these slights can be substantial, leading to isolation, frustration, and a diminished self-worth. . . For racialised groups and for women like me, the repeated experience of having to question our right to feel offended, and the constant reminder that we are not welcome, can lead to physical or mental-health concerns. . .”

The chair of WATCH, Revd Martine Oborne told the audience that the way in which The Five Principles operated were “unsafe”, unjust”, “untrue to the gospel”, and “exploitative” and that,

“There is a huge body of evidence that understandings of male privilege correlate to the abuse of women and girls, and the Church cannot hope to address the harms caused by sexism in our world when we have institutionalised discrimination against women ourselves. The requirement for all clergy to say that they accept the current discrimination effectively silences women, which is an act of violence, and it makes it hard to even disclose abuse or say that we are unhappy about the arrangements, because many of those who do speak out experience marginalisation and gaslighting.”

In an X message in February, Oborne had said of the Bishop of London’s “…clergy colleagues” who “won’t allow her to bless the sacraments or preach because of her sex…” “It is abuse”. That is a striking statement to make at the very time the Church of England was absorbed in trying to determine the future of safeguarding against “abuse”.

The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Christopher Chessun, quoting the Revd Professor Sarah Coakley, wrote to the gathering, of perhaps a hundred, that the prevailing situation was a theological “wound”.

While, no doubt, at least in part, expressing the strength of feeling amongst at least some 'women' in 'the church', the language used could scarcely be more vitriolic, even if the issue were of far greater moment.

Comparisons to murderers, possible rapists, people traffickers, abusers and radicals, unrelenting references to oppression, pollution, defilement, lepers, sub-humans, toxic masculinity, heresy, injury, exploitation, words like male rage, iniquity, violence and so on in respect of what is not even the hottest topic in the CofE raises the question of what other forces are at work that might justify such ferocity at this particular time.

There are perhaps at least three under-currents driving WATCH.

First, and most obvious, is that this performative show is ultimately actually about the hottest present topic - “the Prayers of Love and Faith” (PLF).

That is evident in their own words. The concern is not only about women, but as quoted “anyone else” who is “oppressed” or “supports” “oppression of anyone else” and who is in mind is clear from something else Dr Mallet said,

“What muddies the water is that, in many, if not most of those churches [opposing the Prayers of Love and Faith and seeking pastoral assurances and a separate province], ordained women’s ministry has not been welcomed or accepted. They fly under the radar.”

That is not accurate - more churches are opposed to the PLF than to women bishops. Nonetheless, what WATCH clearly believes is that churches opposing the ordination/consecration of women and churches opposed to the Prayers of Love and Faith are (largely) coterminous. The churches that concern WATCH are of concern on inseparable fronts. As such, there will necessarily need to be a consistent, even identical approach to how the different issues are addressed.

That means both the existing arrangements concerning gender issues in relation to sexuality issues, must cease and they, by definition, most not be replicated in relation to sexuality, or indeed anyone else they regard as “oppressed”.

This understanding is very much reinforced by a trustee of WATCH stating that the group purports to speak for, “…men, women and non-binary people…” and advocates for “…equality for all genders…”. In the WATCH world it is a given not only that sexes/genders are interchangeable in marriage and priesthood, but that gender is not binary at all. Again, anyone disagreeing will be an 'oppressor' and anyone subject to disagreement on that topic will, in their eyes, be a victim of 'oppression'.

Of course, this, like the reference to “racialised groups”, is simply the regular language of 'intersectionality'. But it also means that WATCH wants to make clear that any 'settlement' or 'provision' for those opposed to the PLF along the same lines as that in respect of female bishops will automatically render those accepting it as the same as the “violent” “exploiters” “abusers” and “oppressors” opposed to the ordination/ consecration of women.

It is not only this blog that identifies in WATCH’s statements as part of a larger agenda. The Laudable Practice site, which is strongly supportive of female clergy, again quoting Dr Mallett writes,

“Most strikingly, the Bishop urged that the ordination of women should be understood as a means of pursuing a progressive agenda in the culture wars:

‘I think in honesty we also thought that as society changed and as views became more open-minded among growing numbers of younger men and women, the culture of the Church would change like the culture of the wider society. No one really saw that there was an underlying trend even then, growing within the society, that continues to harbour paternalistic and patriarchal perspectives of the ways societies, institutions, and gendered relationships should be ordered.’

“…In an oft-repeated pattern amongst ideological radicals, WATCH is on track to undermine support for the very practice it seeks to promote. Ecclesiastical moderate conservatives (amongst whom I count myself) who support the ordination of women are very likely to be alienated by the progressive culture war agenda promoted by WATCH.” 

WATCH’s hyperbolic language betrays their real agenda - women’s orders as, to quote Laudable Practice’s criticism again, just one front in, “…the progressive culture war agenda promoted by WATCH”.

And that conflation of issues into one battlefront is again apparent from what WATCH plan to do next. They intend to host “roadshows” in each diocese and hope that will produce either a motion or motions, or a Private Member’s Motion to General Synod calling for the abolition of the Five Guiding Principles (despite them being expressed to be without limit of time). To succeed would require a two-thirds majority of all houses of Synod and that is very unlikely given, especially, the previous commitments of the House of Bishops. This isn’t news to WATCH. At the very time of the launch of the new campaign, their chair said, “Don’t be afraid that the motion might not be passed. The important thing is that it is debated”.

So, the strategy is to bring a motion that will all but inevitably be lost in order to have a “debate”- a debate about how hard it is to obtain a two-thirds majority of Synod to change arrangements, including episcopal arrangements for those who dissent from innovation. In other words, a debate with, in the foreground the dangers of creating settlements that are so hard to change, and against the background to every Synod debate at present- how to get blessings of same-sex couples across the line.

Accordingly, the WATCH campaign is actually about two things: ensuring that conservatives know that no deal is worth having and ensuring that liberals know any deal at all must be resisted. In other words, a campaign for either no deal or failing that, a no-score draw, stasis, deadlock and so on.

That such stasis is quite possibly where the LLF process is heading is also the opinion of such “progressive” campaigners such as Charlie Bell. Writing for Via Media he first repeats the “culture war” going on as he sees it,

“There are two broad strands within the church that have come to theologically divergent conclusions on the goodness, or otherwise, of same-sex, same-gender relationships. In doing so, they have come to theologically divergent conclusions on Christian anthropology, and many other things beside. This is about sex, certainly, but it’s about much more than that – the ethical questions are deeper and wider, and often end up in theological divergence on the nature of God, rather than of God’s creatures.”

Second, having identified the battle he outlines the potential deadlock in it. He says that he fears that,

“The argument goes like this: decisions on LLF are very significant, and are splitting the church. We need to reach consensus on this, meaning – in Synodical arithmetic – getting to two-thirds majorities, the use of Canon B2, and so on, because unless we do the church will split. This is just too important to rely on slim majorities.”

While Revd Dr Bell does not welcome the situation, he is very much in favour of 'no deal', neither does he have a solution to the possibility of it - merely that his opponents need to deal with their, “…failure of…compassion” and repeatedly deploying a, “barrage of passive aggression…” in respect of “…those who ask for a cup of water, and who are still refused.” That is to say there should be no deal or there will be deadlock.

A third additional effect, intentional, or otherwise, of attempting to force such a “debate” is to test the solidarity of “The Alliance” opposed to the Prayers of Love and Faith. There may be a hint of this in something else Oborne suggested. In preparation for the Not Equal Yet Event she said,

“There is no requirement for churches to be transparent about [“saying ‘no’ to female priests”], so often people attend churches and support them financially for many years, without knowing that they are churches that discriminate against women. Many large inner-city churches, such as All Souls, Langham Place and St Helen’s, Bishopsgate in London, St Andrews the Great in Cambridge, and St Ebbe’s in Oxford, do not allow a woman to be their vicar”.

Again, that isn’t an accurate portrayal- these church’s stance of women’s orders won’t be a secret to anyone who has attended such a church “for many years” because it is something both visually obvious and openly celebrated as a USP. But what the claim allows Oborne to do is to name four key churches of “The Alliance” that she says are utterly beyond the pale- not only “discriminatory” but misleading people (at best) by omission and for financial motives. The implicit challenge is whether other “large inner-city churches”- for example, Holy Trinity, Brompton will, in any debate or vote prioritise the solidity of The Alliance and therefore be known to identify with those who practice dishonest “discrimination” for financial gain or prioritise protecting their non-discriminatory reputations for the battles about LLF and so divide The Alliance.

For The Alliance, acceptance or otherwise of the ordination and consecration of women is a potential “wedge issue” and it is hard to imagine WATCH does not see that- hence another reason for having a debate to no other obvious purpose. If a culture war is being fought dividing the opposition forces is a highly desirable goal.

The Bishop of Leicester is already expecting diocesan synods to soon debate the PLF plans and if WATCH get their way, they will also be debating issues of gender- testing both the strength of alliances and the overlap of the two issues.

All the time, of course, the watchful of WATCH can be gathering voting patterns in diocesan synods and General Synod, the better to be able to give candidates pejorative labels in future elections and, if dioceses pass revisionist motions on one or both issues, the better to pressurise dissenters into whether , if elected, they will use their votes in General Synod to reflect the views expressed by the diocese or their own dissension.

That is why, if The Alliance and their fellow travellers in CEEC and the like, are tempted to welcome a PLF stalemate they might want to be careful what they wish for. Where the salvation of souls is the priority for one side and capturing the institution is the priority for the other, there will, in a culture war, only be one winner.

Photo by Jeff Ackley on Unsplash

---

Anglican Futures provides pastoral and practical support for faithful Anglicans.

All our ministry is free at the point of need.

If you value these blogs, please consider supporting our work.

Donate Here