photo: www.reachingforchrist.org

In 1992, the Church of England made the decision that women would be allowed to become priests. Ten years ago this year, their first female vicars were ordained. At the time, passions ran high on both sides of the debate; while many Anglicans welcomed the decision as a triumph for equal rights, a number of clergy left over the issue, some joining the Roman Catholic church instead.

Of course, the Church of England is not the only Church to have had debates over female ordination. In Britain, the Methodist Church has only allowed women to be ordained since 1974, and worldwide, Roman Catholicism still outlaws this practice, as does the Orthodox Church. Plainly, this situation is not ideal - anyone who has read the Nicene Creed, calling for "one holy, catholic and apostolic church" will agree that such divisions can't be a good thing, and one side must be misguided. The trouble is trying to disentangle the actual word of God from over two thousand years of prejudices, customs and axes to be ground.

The first major point is one that I have already raised, after a fashion. It is now over two thousand years since Christ was born. However, all the major churches that have allowed women to be ordained have done so in the past century. Could this perhaps be not a result of actual spiritual guidance, but rather of Christians giving in to the changing world around them, a world increasingly hostile to anything it saw as prejudiced, and so abandoning their great traditions, rooted in God's will? The Catholic and Orthodox Churches stand by this argument, refusing to be swayed by what could simply be a symptom of the times we live in, and holding true to their historical beliefs.

On the other hand, many would argue that the so-called 'traditions' of the church cannot be trusted. That the aversion to ordaining women came from a medieval view of women being inferior to men, and only now that these prejudices are dying can we make a more objective judgement of their place in the church. Since when, anyway, has the church actually been united? Throughout the centuries, Christians have always argued, just as we do now - and to say that Christians in the past were more agreed and so more correct than we are now is a poor defence of any argument. Plus, historical evidence shows that the Catholic church did at least appoint women as deacons between the third and ninth centuries.

This argument, it seems, has reached stalemate. Let us then turn to the Bible - the Word of God can't be clearer than when it's directly written down, can it? At first, the arguments seem pretty unambiguous. In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 Paul writes that "God wants everything to be done peacefully and in order. When God's people meet in church, the women must not be allowed to speak. They must keep quiet and listen, as the Law of Moses teaches. If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands when they get home. It is disgraceful for women to speak in church." In 1 Timothy 2:12-14, he again writes of women, "They should learn by being quiet and paying attention. They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. After all, Adam was created before Eve, and the man Adam wasn't the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned." That doesn't leave much room for debate, then. The Bible says we shouldn't let women preach in church, so that's that. Or is it? Those supporting women's ordination would argue that all these passages were written by one man: Paul. Just to add some context, Paul grew up a Roman citizen and a devout Jew, in a culture and religion where women were definitely viewed as somehow inferior to men. In the synagogues, they worshipped (and in some cases still do) in a different area from the men. In Corinth, he started his work in a synagogue, so the recipients of his letter would have shared similar views. Is there any way that the idea of women as preachers would have entered Paul's head, given the culture of the time? And would it have caused an outrage had he suggested it to the churches in his letters?

People have also argued that the women he spoke of in Corinthians were actually some particular individuals who had been making a row. In different parts of his writings, a less stark view is presented: 1 Timothy 3:8- 11 tells us "Church officers should be serious. They must not be liars, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money. And they must have a clear conscience and hold firmly to what God has shown us about our faith. They must first prove themselves. Then if no one has anything against them, they can serve as officers. Women must also be serious. They must not gossip or be heavy drinkers, and they must be faithful in everything they do," which would seem to say that both men and women were church officers at the time, though how strongly this is stated depends on which translation of the Bible you're reading. The central verse, though, for supporters of women's ordination, is Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I think the implications of that are fairly obvious, but the debate that arises over the nature of the Bible is complex, and I'd rather move on from Paul to someone else: Jesus.

One very strong argument is that there were no women amongst the apostles, and therefore, we should copy Jesus in not having women in important church positions. Jesus wasn't known for sticking to traditions, so surely, if He'd wanted women as ministers, He'd have appointed some Himself? Others would reply that we as Christians shouldn't take what Christ didn't do as a permanent command. He didn't free slaves, for example. Does this mean any of us would own slaves with a clean conscience? Women may not have been amongst the apostles, but Jesus did have women as His close followers: Mary Magdalene, Salome, Joanna, Martha and her sister Mary are just some of those in the New Testament.

There are, as you can see, arguments on either side of this debate; it is not a simple issue. Breaking with the traditions and wisdom of hundreds of years of Christianity is not something to be taken lightly, and can cause (and has caused) grievances; but on the other hand, we should never let something remain, 'because it has always been that way' and not seek God's actual intent on a matter. In some churches, scholars have thought long and hard, and decided to admit women to the clergy, while in others, the decision has gone the opposite way. One thing we should all remember, though, is that while others may not share all our beliefs, we do all share the most important belief: our belief in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.