How Egalitarian Tactics Swayed Evangelicals in the Church of England

November 1992 was a critical time for the Church of England. It was then that the General Synod voted in favour of women becoming priests/presbyters. Before the November vote, a preliminary discussion and vote was taken at the July synod. The Evangelical Group in General Synod (EGGS) arranged a debate and discussion about the whole issue. Everyone knew that it would be the evangelical vote that would cause the measure to succeed or fail, so the debate was important.

I was asked to be one of the speakers along with Colin Craston, a senior evangelical clergyman who is in favour of women priests. The debate had been carefully planned; we exchanged papers several months before and were meant to react to the final papers we each produced. It was set up to be as productive as possible and to minimise misunderstanding between us.

However, on the Monday of the week of the debate Canon Craston pulled out, stating that he had to be at a meeting of the synod Standing Committee, and without any consultation, he substituted for himself an able and popular laywoman theologian, Christina Baxter, the Dean of St. John's College, Nottingham. I respect and like Christina, but it was a clever debating substitution! Then Canon Craston arrived just after the debate started! We had a full, frank and irenic exchange of views that I hope and believe was helpful and instructive.

Both positions were fully and fairly represented. What surprised me were several factors:

1. Although I am used in other contexts to being booed and heckled (at a University mission in the students' union, for example), to find oneself being treated like that by sisters and brothers in Christ was a surprising and difficult experience. Some evangelical feminists/egalitarians are just rude, and one feels that if men behaved like that we would be in deep trouble! Well perhaps we have been rude or demeaning in the past too, but I was a bit surprised and shocked! I was very surprised to find someone like Elaine Storkey joining with others who were saying "Rubbish! Nonsense!" during my presentation. During the discussion, I was also disappointed by the silence from many that held our position-although I do see that the tactic caused the other side to somewhat overstate their case.

2. I was very surprised by the patently selective use of material, and what looked like the dredging up of anything that would support a predetermined case. Let me give an example. One able minister in response to what I had said on Ephesians 5 made the point that "submit" was not present in the Greek text of Ephesians 5:22 so we did not need to bother about it! Mutual submission was all that is required! I was not allowed to respond, but I asked the chairman to ask him was "submit" in the text of verse 24 (which it is!). The answer was ducked, and one was left with the impression that either the person knew no Greek (patently not the case) or that selective use of the text was being made. This is frankly not worthy of us as evangelicals. I am loathe to accuse and come to such conclusions, but I was deeply disturbed by what appeared to be on this occasion a lack of integrity in handling evidence.

3. What shocked me most of all was the response that I got when I talked about the "economic" view of the Trinity-that within the equality of the Trinity there was functional subordination, and that it was the delight of the Son to submit to the Father's will.

This, I said was the historic doctrine of the Trinity, which it is. At this, a section of the 100 present shouted "rubbish," "no," etc. At this point I asked Christina (who looked embarrassed) and others in the audience what alternative view they held. It materialised that they believed in mutual submission in the Trinity. I asked if I had understood them clearly, that is, that they believed that the Father submitted to the Son, the Father to the Spirit, the Son to the Spirit, etc. They said I had understood them correctly. I then asked them for one piece of biblical evidence to substantiate this view. There was silence, and none was forthcoming! I then said gently that until some biblical evidence was forthcoming I would stick to the historic view for which there was lots of biblical support! More boos!

I thought in my naivete that the Trinity was unassailable amongst evangelicals until that day. But I now see more clearly that when one part of what Scripture teaches is abandoned then it is not long before other doctrines start being revised or adjusted. This is incredibly serious, as the erosion of the Trinity will lead to there being no distinctive persons in the Trinity, and therefore no distinctively Trinitarian doctrine! I was more shaken by this aspect of the encounter than anything else, and deeply concerned at the erosion of fundamental doctrine amongst other respected evangelicals. Could they be so unaware of the seriousness of what was happening?

In the end, on November 11, 1992, the Ordination of Women as Priests Measure was just passed in each house of General Synod (bishops, presbyters, and laity) by the necessary two-thirds majority. I am told that the crucial determining vote was decided by two evangelical lay votes (out of 251 lay delegates voting) from people who changed their minds on the day of the vote!