'Adolescence' and Holy Orders: how progressives will undermine support for the ordination of women

It is bad enough that the Netflix drama 'Adolescence' is driving government policy in the United Kingdom. To have it also proposed as a reason to determine the Church of England's approach to holy orders was, however, rather unexpected. The drama - note, not a documentary, despite the views of the Prime Minister - was invoked by the Area Bishop of Croydon, Dr Rosemarie Mallett, launching a campaign by the pressure group Women And The Church (WATCH) to repeal the Church of England's provisions for those opposed to the ordination of women. 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.

That a Netflix drama, the repulsive Andrew Tate, and the cultural concerns of North Atlantic progressives in the early decades of the 21st century should determine the doctrine and practice of holy orders in the Church of England is, to say the least, a rather uninspiring account of why we ordain women. We certainly have travelled a very long way from Cranmer, who rooted the ordained ministry in Scripture and apostolic practice:

It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 

This, it seems, is much less significant than heeding the message of 'Adolescence' and a progressive cultural war agenda.

Now, to be clear, and as regular readers of laudable Practice will know, I support the ordination of women.  I do so because I believe it coheres with and is not contrary to Scripture. I also have no stake in the particular provisions made for the Church of England for those doctrinally opposed to the ordination of women. That said, I regard these provisions to be wise and prudent, and to serve the mission of the Church of England. 

I certainly do not, however, support the ordination of women because I regard it as a means of furthering a progressive social vision. This, ironically, is the view aggressively promoted by online, Hard Right Roman Catholic commentators (you know the type, the sort who talk about 'priestesses', despite the fact that the Vatican eschews such offensive language). To have WATCH and the Area Bishop of Croydon echo and confirm some of the most divisive and offensive online, Hard Right Roman Catholic commentators is not only ridiculous; it is also profoundly self-defeating, undermining the case for the ordination of women. 

Justifying the ordination of women, not because it coheres with Scripture, but because it aligns with the progressive concerns of a section of contemporary Western opinion, also weakens the case for the practice because the progressive concern with 'toxic masculinity' is entirely unpersuasive for those of us who are not progressives. And by this, I do not mean MAGA supporters. I mean thoughtful thinkers such as David Goodhart:

An emotionally mature liberalism must also accept ... things that do not challenge the core beliefs of modern liberalism but temper and qualify their more dogmatic application. The belief, for example, that men and women are equal but not identical and that some sort of gender division of labour in the home and the broader society remains popular. That order and legitimate authority in families, schools and the wider society are a necessary condition of human flourishing, not a means of crushing it.

Similarly, Richard Reeves, author of Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It (2022):

Toxic masculinity is a counterproductive term. Very few boys and men are likely to react well to the idea that there is something toxic inside them that needs to be exorcized. This is especially true given that most of them identify quite strongly with their masculinity. Nine in ten men and women describe themselves as either “completely” or “mostly” masculine or feminine. These gender identities are held quite strongly too. Almost half of men (43%) said their sex was “extremely important” to their identity. In another survey by Pew Research Center, a similar proportion of men (46%) said that it was either very or somewhat important for others to see them as “manly or masculine.” (In both surveys, the numbers were even higher for women.) In other words, most people identify pretty strongly as either masculine or feminine. It is a bad idea to send a cultural signal to half the population that there may be something intrinsically wrong with them.

“The toxic masculinity . . . framing alienates the majority of nonviolent, non-extreme men,” argues the feminist writer Helen Lewis, “and does little to address the grievances, or counteract the methods, that lure susceptible individuals toward the far right.”

This highlights a crucial problem with justifying ecclesial belief and practice by means of passing progressive fashions: it fundamentally compromises such belief and practice because while the ideological fashions are convincing for the progressive tribe, they are rejected by very many of us who do not belong to that tribe.

Related to this, any attempt to suggest that there is a missional imperative for removing the Church of England's provisions for those doctrinally opposed to the ordination of women is, frankly, absurd. Days after WATCH launched its campaign, the Bible Society produced its excellent report Quiet Revival. Amongst its findings is this:

among 18–34s, only 20% of churchgoers are Anglican (down from 30% in 2018), with 41% Catholic and 18% Pentecostal.

Any hint of a suggestion that this poor Anglican performance amongst 18-34s is due to the Church of England's provisions for those opposed to the ordination of women would be utterly derisible, and for very obvious reasons. The male-only understanding of holy orders in the Roman Catholic Church has, quite clearly, been no obstacle to growth amongst 18-34s. And while women are ordained in the Pentecostal tradition, I think it is fair to say that it is mostly ordained men who have the most prominent leadership roles. 

What is more, a progressive echo chamber, turning the church into an EDI seminar, is unlikely to attract 18-34s profoundly seeking deeper meaning, identity, and hope, and disillusioned with the offerings of the vapid ideologies of secular culture: why should they not stay with professionally run EDI seminars offered in the workplace, rather than get out of bed on Sunday morning for more of the same?

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. 

Thankfully, many ordained women are themselves moderate conservatives, who rightly believe their orders cohere with Scripture and an apostolic understanding of ordained ministry - and they are unwilling to exchange this rich, scriptural, apostolic understanding for the of mess of pottage presented by progressive culture warriors. Those of us who joyfully support the ordination of women will, I hope, listen to these women in holy orders, rather than being influenced by WATCH and its supporters to question such support. 'Adolescence' and a progressive culture war agenda, after all, is a dismally poor substitute for "diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authors".

__________

(A note about comments. This post is not the place for a debate about the ordination of women. Any comments should be directed to the specific matter at hand. I have the greatest of respect for those who oppose the ordination of women on doctrinal grounds. I expect that respect to be reciprocated in any comments. Comments failing to do so will not be published. Likewise, any comments which presume to lecture opponents of ordination of women on 'toxic masculinity' will be not be published.)