Memorial submitted to the Lambeth Conference 1948 on Deaconesses

A MEMORIAL submitted to THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE 1948 ON DEACONESSES

BY THE ANGLICAN GROUP FOR THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN

By THE ANGLICAN GROUP FOB THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN TO TEE HISTORIC MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH

The REV. H. T. MALAHER; M.A.. Vicar of Whitchurch. Nr. Aylesbury, Bucks (Chairman)

Pursuant to the Agenda of the Conference, which includes the subject of Deaconesses, THE ANGLICAN GROUP begs respectfully to submit the following Memorial:

(i) That Deaconesses be placed on exactly the same footing as Deacons, and the Diaconate of Women be given, in all respects, the same scope, functions and status, as that of Men; including recognition of it as a Ministry to the whole Church, rather than mainly to women and children.

(ii) That it be regarded, equally with the Diaconate of Men, as a stepping-stone to the higher Orders of the Historic three-fold Ministry, for those called by God to proceed beyond the Diaconate.

(iii) And that the full Historic three-fold Ministry be declared open to Women on the same terms as to Men; the ministry of Men and Women being merged into a common priesthood and a common diaconate,

As a body of loyal Anglicans, both men and women, priests and layfolk, the Group earnestly submits the above proposals not only on the ground of the spiritual equality of men and women in Christ Jesus, but also on the grounds that women have an unique and distinctive contribution to make to the Church, that the Church has great need of this contribution, and that in these days of recurrent crisis the matter is one of great urgency.

Since the questions of Deaconesses, and of the Ministry of Women, were last raised in the Lambeth Conference the World background has been radically altered.

One general development consists in the widespread consolidation of the position of women in public life that has taken place since 1930, a consolidation showing how natural the public activities of women now seem to the great bulk of their fellow-citizens, men and women alike.

Another general development is that since the Conference last sat the Second World-War has taken place. This world-shattering event has rendered obsolete a great variety of policies, many of them once very wise, in every department of life, both secular and religious; and the general relationship

and contribution of women to society is obviously a matter too important and many-sided to escape reconsideration.

Another important fact, this time of a specifically ecclesiastical nature, is the ordination to the priesthood of Deaconess Li Tim Oi, by the Bishop of Hongkong, coupled with the official reference that the Church in China has made to the Lambeth Conference in consequence. This unexpected event has placed the matter at one bound on a new level. It is no longer possible to suggest that the supporters of our Movement are actuated more by secular desire for "women's rights" (a position we definitely and strongly repudiate) than for opportunities of increased spiritual service. The question has, in fact, now become definitely official and ecclesiastical, and of the widest constitutional, practical, and spiritual significance to the entire Anglican Communion.

A second ecclesiastical development is apparently domestic, and at first sight of so routine a nature that there is danger of its most significant and fundamental feature being wholly overlooked. We refer to certain proposed new Canons for the Church of England, to be passed into law as part of a revision of Canon Law in general.

Superficially the proposed Canon No, 84, ''Of the Order of Deaconesses/' is merely a routine matter relating only to the regulation of Deaconesses- When taken, however, in conjunction with Canon No. 91, "Of Lay Readers," the surprising fact emerges that a Reader, though a layman, may execute functions not mentioned at all in the Canon relating to Deaconesses, though these are ordained.

The implications involved in this proposal are serious and fundamental, and affect the status not only of deaconesses but of all women as such. We shall deal with them below, but for the moment it suffices to say that these Canons are sufficient in themselves to have created a new situation. It is therefore against the entirely new background created by the four factors mentioned above that we respectfully beg permission to lay afresh before the Lambeth Conference the claims of women both to a diaconate fully equivalent to that of men and to admission to the historic three-fold Ministry of the Church, on a unified basis. It is a matter that can no longer be ignored, belittled, or postponed.

The claim of women to be admitted to the historic three-fold Ministry of the Church (a Ministry at once pastoral, prophetic, and priestly) is based upon three principles, respectively theological, sociological, and practical.

The theological and the sociological principles alike are two-fold, relating both to distinctive ness and equality, the spiritual equality of women with men being one marked by distinctiveness rather than identity or uniformity. We will take first the theological principle"DISTINCTIVE SPIRITUAL EQUALITY."

The argument for spiritual equality, in its Biblical and theological aspect, is not new: the case for it has been submitted to Lambeth before- Nevertheless, we cannot but observe that no clear and convincing statement of the overwhelming objections alleged to exist to the ordination of women has ever yet been made: as was admitted by the Second Archbishop's Commission ("We are not prepared to endorse any single argument which has been adduced or reviewed as m itself a sufficient ground for the exclusion of women from the three historic Orders.” Report, p. 27, 1935).

In our view the strength of the opposition to women lies less in theology than in psychological prejudice, inherited from primitive times.

We are aware it has been maintained that women are inherently incapable of receiving the grace of priesthood, but this is only to beg the very question at issue. Further, it seems to us irreverent to refuse to test a woman's claim to have received a call from the Holy Spirit of God, while accepting assurances 10 that effect from candidates who are male. Consciousness of a call from God is a matter for the deepest consideration, and we feel, with the prophet of old, "The Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?" (Amos, 3. 8).

Failing theological proof to the contrary The Anglican Group feel they may humbly rely on the great Pauline principle that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female; and on the clear Scriptural evidence that it was to women that Our Lord first revealed His Resurrection, and first gave a commission to impart the news lo others. We feel that this point has never yet received adequate consideration.

A writer in The Ministry of Women (p.33) stated that, "The appearance to St. Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection was not reckoned among the appearances which may be termed official on which the belief of Christendom was to rest." We venture to suggest that in our own generation, with its fuller knowledge of the implications of Christianity, and the higher status now accorded to women, such '' appearance" would now be considered as being as "official" as any made to the Apostles themselves.

We would hither suggest that a post-Resurrection commission by Our Lord is to be considered as no less authoritative and significant than commissions given to The Twelve and The Seventy. Had the words "go to my brethren and say unto them ..." (St. John 20. 17) been uttered to St. Peter, instead of to Mary Magdalene, we may well believe (to judge by ample precedent) that the most far-reaching claims would have been based upon the commission so given.

It has also been urged that equality of spiritual status and spiritual gifts does not necessarily imply identity of function. But neither does it readily suggest functions that are respectively dominant and subordinate. The onus of proof, on this point, is on the men, not the women. It is precisely the point as to whether the claim of men to the exclusive exercise of priesthood is justified that is in question, and in spiritual matters there is no evidence dial function is differentiated on lines of sex. Nor can an appeal to custom be considered as 'proof ' for reasons that will occur to any student of history or evolution.

The structure of society has not invariably been wholly dominated by men: it has been matrilineal as well; and the peculiarly interesting and relevant feature of our present-day civilisation is, that it is becoming less and less one-sided every day, and is evolving something newan approximation to a balance, rather than a conflict, of the claims of the two sexes. Then-position is now regarded as complementary, and even the exercise of jurisdiction is falling increasingly to merit rather than to sex. Modern civilisation is becoming more and more concerned with what is HUMAN, human as such, rather than with male and female- It is as human beings that we stand before our fellow-men; and as human beings that we stand before God.

It has, however, been suggested that our proposals are due to "a mistaken desire to assimilate the functions of women to the functions of men.” But apart from matters of procreation, what fixed and agreed definition prevails as to wherein these respective functions exist and differ? It is wholly a matter of custom and convenience, widely varied and continually changing. It is precisely this claim that public ministry is an exclusively masculine function that we openly challenge. Our contention is, that distinctions of sex are subordinate to the wider principle of our common humanity, and of redeemed humanity in particular: personality is a more fundamental and inclusive category than sex.

It is for this reason that we cannot be satisfied with any proposal for a more fully recognised and more fully empowered "Order of Deaconesses," as a separate body from the Order of Deacons, So long, of course, as the two Orders do in fact remain separate we claim full equality, scope and status for the Order of Deaconesses; but the ideal Christian Ministry, we here submit, is one in which sex is subordinated to personality, and there is but one diaconate (jointly for men and women), and but one order of priesthood, for women as for men.

In such a Ministry selection for specific posts would go by individual merit and suitability, and the distinction of sex be treated on the same footing as any of the very marked distinctions that exist among men themselves; where the difference, say, between an aesthete and a veteran soldier, or a nonentity and a genius. is as startling, as any between the average man and woman.

But the mainspring of our claim for women is not so much a desire for full recognition of their spiritual equality (an equality that exists in spiritual fact, whether recognised or not), as a desire for SERVICEservice according to their special and distinctive gifts, of which we feel the Church has real need.

We imagine that no informed and unprejudiced student of life and history, with a panorama of nearly 2000 years of Christian achievement before his eyes, would think today of denying the great and distinctive contribution of women in every aspect of life. Indeed, those most opposed to the admission of women to the Ministry are frequently the most enthusiastic regarding the "inspiration" (significant word) that women afford to men from behind the scenes: but why should not women be permitted to "inspire" the world openly and directly, instead of privately and indirectly? History proves they are fully capable of so doing,

Such women as St, Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Hilda, Abbess of Whitby; and St. Joan of Arc, have shown that women may encourage kings, and even whole nations, may rebuke popes, and may instruct saints, Names, too, like those of Elizabeth Fry. Florence Nightingale, Josephine Butler, Evelyn Underhill and countless others, including missionaries, nurses, educationists, and even martyrs (Primitive, Protestant, Catholic, and Modern), have proved beyond question that women have a distinctive spiritual quality, and that they are capable of manifesting it in public, and on the widest stages.

In this connection it is helpful to be concrete, and to recall: Firstly, that one characteristic regarded by men as distinctive of women is their enthusiasm. This is one of the gifts most necessary to the Church of today, and it is scarcely credible that a purely male Ministry, a Ministry elderly and overburdened at that. is likely to produce the fire and the spiritual revival that alone will save the present generation. Secondly women are marked by interest in the personal and individual. This is a quality of particular value in the Christian pastorate.

And thirdly, women frequently display great insight in matters spiritual, as is evident not only in daily life but in the Gospel Narratives themselves, and we submit it is not right that the door of the Ministry should be closed automatically to all such. Were a woman of the spiritual calibre of St. Teresa of Avila, or a St. Catherine to arise again, the grave unwisdom of such a course, and the heavy responsibility incurred, would be more than ever apparent.

Lastly, though it is true that some women prefer the help of men rather than of their own sex, in matters both secular and religious, there are very many to whom precisely the oppose applies, and in such a case identity of sex forms yet another distinctive qualification. It is, indeed, hard to believe that the bulk of the very numerous section of women that has drifted completely away from the Church can ever be recalled save by other women, in many cases they alone have the opportunity,

But although all this is well known to the world in general, the official Church has nevertheless not yet drawn from it the obvious conclusions.

It may, however, be suggested chat women can exercise their distinctive gifts without also claiming the priesthood: their gifts can be exercised outside it, But this argument applies equally to men, for they, too, have distinctive gifts. Will traditionalists readily concede that these, likewise, can be adequately exercised outside the priesthood? The logic of their argument demands an affirmative answer. But if so, why have priesthood at all? It would seem, on this reasoning, to be unnecessary.

A further consideration arises here. In a world rushing headlong to apostasy and destruction these are not the times for deferred or leisurely decisions: it is a matter of the greatest urgency. The Anglican Group is fully aware of the argument that the admission of women co the Ministry is not more urgent than Christian Reunion, and that to such a reunion their ministry would prove a serious barrier. But this objection loss's much of its plausibility upon examination.

For the argument from the alleged danger to Christian unity ignores the fad that Catholic reunion is already blocked, indefinitely, on other grounds altogether: it ignores, too, the most distinctive feature of our own Anglican history, namely, the 16th century breach with Rome. The consistent application of this argument would equally condemn the use of English instead of Latin in our Church Services, our married priesthood and episcopate, and our rejection of Papal jurisdiction. Yet the English Church did not hesitate to adopt these positions, and thereby risk final breach of a unity of untold antiquity, actually in existence. This unity is no longer in being, and we cannot he expected to act as if it were, nor is there the remotest likelihood of our going back on the Reformation Settlement,

Indeed the urgency of our time is such that we cannot consent to progress being blocked indefinitely by those who refuse to move, In our particular day tile Wind of God blows freshly, and the Church that seizes this God-given opportunity does God's work the best. Whole sections of the population have already virtually apostasized, and unless this falling away is checked the present generation will be almost wholly lost to the Church. These are no times for working shorthanded, hut, rather, for the very utmost and the very speediest that we can wring from the day of opportunity. Every decade of delay in making the decision to admit womena decision ultimately inevitable will mean an increasingly deteriorating situation, and losses that will take generations to recover.

Doubtless many of our sympathisers will urge us to patience. But it is gravely distressing to contemplate the large and increasing number of women now virtually outside the Church on account o? its excessive conservatismnot only in this connection but m others also. Their enthusiasms and allegiances are now attached to secular causes instead.

And though theirs is a course which does not commend itself to us personally, we cannot but understand it, and we know it will become more and more prevalent. Patience is therefore out of place. It manifestly can not be maintained m circumstances where matters, so far from getting gradually more favourable, however slowly, are getting demonstrably worse and worse, and where also permission to help is denied us. For, in addition to the growing- apostasy, whereas in the year 1920 the prospects of at least a real Diaconate seemed reasonably bright/ every fresh move since then has been a darkening and a lessening of the fair prospect then (to that extent) held out to us.

The following facts show how markedly the position has deteriorated. The Committee of the Lambeth Conference of 1930 itself admitted (see Report, p. 177), in regard to the restoration of the Order of Deaconesses (which it spoke of as "a revival that had been hailed with thankfulness by the Lambeth Conference of 1897"), that "the hopes underlying this action of 1920 have been but meagrely fulfilled - - - generally speaking there has been little recognition by the Church of the possibilities of the Order, and such recognition is not appreciably increasing."

The fact is, that authoritative Church statements, formerly increasingly favourable, have of recent years steadily whittled down what was once admitted or half promised. The Archbishop of Canterbury's Committee of 1917-19 has declared {"The Ministry of Women." p. 10), in regard lo Primitive Ordination forms, that the evidence "Justifies the assumption that the diaconate they were intended to confer was as real a diaconate as that conferred upon men": and, that "the ordination of a deaconess developed into a real ordination strictly parallel to that of the male diaconate" (p. 10): while an appendix by the then Bishop of Gibraltar (p. 109) quoted approvingly Bishop Lightfoot's dictum that Phoebe "was as much a deacon as Stephen or Philip is a deacon": again, the relevant Committee of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 proposed that the Deaconess should "render assistance at the administration of Holy Communion to sick persons" (p- 104); and it stated (p. 102) that "In our judgment the Ordination of a Deaconess confers on her Holy Orders," even as late as 1946 (see '' Deaconesses in the Church of England'') it appears to have been contemplated that Deaconesses should at least be permitted to read Morning and Evening Prayer, and to preach.

But, taken as a whole, since 1920 there has been a steady decline. Without going into detail it will suffice to illustrate this statement by reference to the proposed new Canons already here referred to. Canon No. 91, "Of Lay Readers," states that it shall be lawful for a Reader, during the time of Divine Service, to read Morning or Evening Prayer, to publish Banns of Marriage, to read the Word of God, and also 10 preach: to receive the offerings (i.e. in the Sanctuary), and when specially authorised to read the Epistle or administer the Cup at Holy Communion. These functions, it will be noted, are to be permitted to a LAY person.

Canon No, 84, " Of the Order of Deaconesses,'' however, makes no mention whatever of reading Morning and Evening Prayer, or of reading the Word of God, or of preaching, still less of functioning within the Sanctuary, or of reading the Epistle, or administering the Cup at Holy Communion. From these notable omissions it appears abundantly clear not only that Deaconesses are to be permitted much less than was contemplated originally, but (what is far more fundamental) , that mere la;- people, if men, may perform a variety of functions that are virtually forbidden to ordained Deaconesses.

This is a strange regulation indeed, for it strikes not only at women but also at any '' high"' doctrine of the sacrament of Ordination: if men may thus dispense with Ordination for functions that require it with women, they may possibly some day come to think they can dispense with it at all times, whatsoever.

Further, together with these notable omissions may be connected the fact that this Canon states ''It belongs to the office of a Deaconess ... to exercise a pastoral care over women, young people, and children" : but nowhere in the Ordinal may be found any corresponding passage in which the office of a Deacon is restricted to "men, youths, and young boys.”

This unfortunate tale of consistent deterioration is further enlarged by a series of retractations and modifications so subtle that probably nobody, certainly not we ourselves, can any longer venture to say with confidence what precisely it is that the Church now professes to do and to authorise in this matter. There is a minimising theory of Ordination in circulation that appears to us to rob words of their ordinary meaning, and to deprive the Church's official and semi-official utterances of much of their value. '' Recent Opinions in Church Law," section 10, Opinion 5, lends some colour to the deductions to be drawn from such a view, as far as the status of Deaconesses is concerned. On this theory a distinction should be drawn between Orders and Holy Orders, and it is claimed that women can be ordained in the former sense only.

This view is held despite the fact that in addition to the statements already quoted the Resolutions of both Convocation, 1923-25 (as quoted in "Deaconesses in the Church of England," 1940, pp. 1,4, 7 and o) state that "The Order of Deaconesses is an Apostolic Order of Ministry in the Church of God:” and that the ordination of a Deaconess "conveys an indelible character" : and refer to other Resolutions stating '' she may properly be addressed as REVEREND”: while the Archbishops' Commission of 1935 (pp. 47, 7) declared, of the ordained woman, than "her status has the permanence that belongs to Holy Orders/' and "for all religious and ecclesiastical purposes she ought to be regarded and described as a person who is in Holy Orders."

Such language is hard to square with the minimising theory, yet it is the latter that finds support m the proposed new Canons already referred to, la it any wonder that women do not know where they stand, or what the Church really means? Such a state of affairs is unsatisfactory for more reasons than one. The use of such words as "Holy Orders" and "ordain/' and such recognised technical terms as "indelible" and "character," in different senses for men and women/ without officially distinguishing and defining them, is morally difficult to defend: it is also highly dangerous in practice, for times have changed, and, apart from the Shock to the belief of the Faithful in sacramental theology, the effect upon a critical outside public is calculated to be distinctly unfortunate,

Further, whatever the outcome of the contest between the minimising and the normal theories of ordination, it seems to us that no matter on which theory we understand the terms concerned, the proposed new Canons will commit the Church to a position that is gravely undesirable and wholly indefensible. For if unordained Readers may perform functions not permitted to ordained Deaconesses the two-fold inference is clear: first, that a woman is a being so inferior to a man that even the grace of Order (or of Holy Order) cannot raise her to his level; and second, that this being so, "the grace of Order" is a mere accessory to "the grace of sex” since, on this view, and on the practical working of these Canons, ordination is one thing for men, and another for women. Ordained, or semi-ordained (whichever theory we adopt), a woman is still on a lower level than a man. This is a view highly derogatory to womenall women, as such, and not merely deaconesses. It is an attack upon the spiritual status of all women as a sex, and an attempt to commit the Church of England, for the first time (at least since the Reformation), to an official endorsement of their inferiority.

This is a new and startling development indeed, and one that we cannot possibly allow to pass unchallenged. We desire, therefore, to submit a formal and definite protest against the adoption by the Church of this Canon concerning Deaconesses, or any other Canon placing them on a lower level than Lay Readers,

Finally we would wish to point out some of the practical consequences that would inevitably follow any decision to put these Canons into practice. Firstly, if unordained Readers may do more than officially ordained Deaconesses, women will seek to serve the Church as Lay Readers rather than as Deaconesses, and the Order, of Deaconesses will be gravely weakened. The Archbishops' Commission 1935 (pp. 56. 54) specifically suggested that women should be permitted to become Readers, and there would be no, valid reason for refusing them, since no claim to ordination is involved.

And secondly, since male Readers can wholly dispense with the ordination held necessary for Deaconesses, and women Readers would have rejected ordination as a positive hindrance, it is plain that ordination would fall in the general estimation, and the whole sacramental system with it.

In any case, whether women become Readers or not, these Canons will deal a deathblow to the Order of Dcaconesses. Women cannot be expected to accept a lifelong vocation, with serious social and financial restrictions, only in order to be permitted to do less, far less, than any man may be authorised to do without any such restrictions at all, and at any convenient weekend or not, as he wishes.

Proposals of this surprising nature, so stultifying and self-contradictory, and (to our mind) so unspiritual and un-sacramental, will most certainly fail to attract educated women to the service of the Church, or to encourage them to attain high and exacting professional qualifications.

We respectfully submit there is only one way to clear up this tangle of anomalies and uncertainties, namely to return to the first principles of the Christian Gospel. If men and women were considered first and foremost in respect of their COMMON REDEEMED HUMANITY; that is, the things they have, as Christians, in common and not in difference, if they were considered, in short, as human beings, not as sexes, they would come forward freely, and fall naturally into their place in one common diaconate, one common priesthood, even as they do already in one common laity. There is no other way. “All one in Christ Jesus'' means what it says.

Like the Theological Principle it is two-sided, and may be described as "DISTINCTIVE SOCIAL EQUALITY-"

In relation to Equality it is only natural to find that as the result of literally thousands of years of subjection Women have, in the past, been widely regarded socially as the inferiors of Men. The social and psychological conditions consequent on such subjection afford, we submit, ample and sufficient explanation of the fact that the Early Church did not ordain women to the official Ministry; a consideration that cuts the ground from under those who declare that ecclesiastical tradition has necessarily decided this matter for all time. For it stands to reason, in any sphere of life, that the passing away of inhibiting conditions automatically removes the consequent inhibition itself.

Oppressed classes of Men, likewise, whether in the cultural, economic, racial, or any other sphere^ have similarly been regarded as inferior to their fellows, and have so regarded themselves; but nevertheless, in our Western civilisation, in recent times, both men and women have shown that such conceptions of inferiority are artificial, removable, and contrary to the creative purpose of God.

Modem public life provides abundant evidence of the possession by women of valuable social gifts; the social position of women is now being completely revolutionised; and it behoves the Church to abandon an antiquated thesis that will be utterly incomprehensible to posterity, and that has already become a contributory factor in She increasing apostasy of our times,

Again, in relation to Distinctiveness, women, being different from men, have their own particular contribution to make, both in Church and State, A woman doctor or woman politician is not just a numerical addition to her male colleagues, but brings to her profession something distinctive, something essentially new and different, for which the world is all the richer.

So, we may anticipate, will it be in the Church, the Body of Christ, Women will provide something that cannot be given by men, even as it was a Woman who (on the human side) alone enabled the glory of the Incarnation to be revealed to mankind. The fullness of the stature of the Body of Christ is entirely inconceivable if one whole side is to remain semi-paralysed, and to function only partially and intermittently.

Our third principle is a practical one; it is "THE PRINCIPLE OF SURVIVAL”. Adaptation to changing circumstance is the law of life; and societies, like individuals, that fail display it either die out or become useless.

Though these are times of unique opportunity the Church today, after 1900 years of often highly chequered existence, is widely discredited, and is fighting for its very life. Rival philosophies and political systems beset it on all hands: the crisis is urgent, and the time is short.

In such circumstances, no man fights with one hand tied behind his backyet the Church deprives itself of half its "man-power": no Cause deliberately discourages its most enthusiastic champions -- yet the Church relegate its women folk to subordinate places: in these democratic days no great organisation places half its voters, and half only, in a privileged positionyet the Church does precisely this and forgets that the other half also, have ecclesiastical votes and opinions, and financial resources: and again no man fighting against time treats a week as a year, or an opportunity as a thing of naughtyet the Church too often flings away the fleeting advantage, regardless of the urgent crisis. Such behaviour is wholly unpractical, and may well prove fatal to survival. The Church that ignores the elementary laws of life will have only itself to thank if its days are numbered.

The Church in the West, so long in the vanguard of progress, has grown footsore and weary, and now lags at the end of the column, unduly burdened with the traditional of its past: but once before, at the birth of Christ, light came from the East, and so it may be again: the Church in China has shown the way, by raising this question in fashion unpremeditated, and from a quarter wholly unexpected.

The Church allows its daughters to be neither priests nor prophets, yet both Hebrew Prophet and Christian Apostle spoke of the days when, "saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons AND YOUR DAUGHTERS shall prophesy . . . and on my servant:, AND ON MY HANDMAIDENS I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy". . . So let it be

Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity; and in the present world-crisis we recognise the voice of the Spirit calling the Church to cast aside her prejudices and fears, and make new ventures of faith. So only can God’s Kingdom come, and His will be done on earth.