www.thegospeltruthministry.com

Let Women Be Women:

Equality, Ministry & Ordination

by Peter Toon

Gracewing.  Fowler Wright Books, 1990 

Chapter  2 – The full programme

      To do justice to many of the women who campaign the hardest for the ordination of women (e.g. the leadership of the Movement for the Ordination of Women), I must now try to explain what I find in their writings and hear in their talks as the context in which their call for women priests and the renewal of the Church is made.  They are well educated people whose total agenda is much more than the ordaining of women.  They realised some time ago that ordination does not, and cannot, stand alone as a solitary goal.  To aim for this goal alone is like aiming for a bull’s eye which floats in the air and is not part of the darts’ board.  Or, to put it another way, they have recognised that achieving only the ordination of women is like buying the engine of a car but not the chassis, the body and the wheels.  So they insist with some justification that the ordination of women belongs rightfully and naturally with other developments and changes in the Church if it is to be the means of genuine renewal and advance in God’s Church.

      What are these developments and changes?  First of all, there is the adoption of what is technically called “non-exclusive” and/or “inclusive language” in actual services of worship as well as in all books of liturgies, prayers, and hymnbooks.  This development has two aspects: changes in the way we speak of humanity and in how we speak of and address God.

      In the second place, there is a new interpretation of the Bible through the acceptance and the use of the doctrine that patriarchy (male domination of women) is evil.  Reading the Bible on the assumption that patriarchy is evil can and does lead to radical results, which have immediate reference to traditional Christian doctrine and ethics.  In the third place, there is a change of emphasis in the way Jesus, the Christ, is presented in order to emphasise his humanity rather than his maleness.  These three areas of change and development are of course linked; but, it will make for easier explanation if we look at them separately. 

Patriarchy

      We are all familiar with the name of “patriarch” used of the “fathers” of the Israelite people – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  These men were heads of their tribe/clan/family.  It was the rule in ancient near-eastern society that the man was the head of the woman, who was the homemaker and mother of his children.  In modern terms women then had few human rights, for they were regarded, in legal terms, as the possession of either their father or their husband.  Their children, the fruit of their wombs, belonged to their husbands.  Of course they could have (and did have) great influence over men through the use of their intelligence, beauty, sexual attraction and cooking but such influence came and went and had no other foundation than the individual personality and circumstances.  This organisation of society in which the men are the rulers and the women the ruled is known as patriarchy (= the rule of families by fathers).

      In fact as we look over the history of the ancient near East (where Biblical history took place) and the history of Europe up to modern times (where the Christian Church has been an integral part of society), we find that patriarchy in one form or another has existed at all times and in all places.  Certainly there have been occasional queens of countries (e.g. Mary Tudor and Elizabeth I of England) but this has not changed the general picture of home and society, city and nation, being ruled by men.  Put in stark terms, there has been a domination of women by men throughout recorded history.  To put it this way is only to express the state of affairs as viewed from outside.  Women, it is claimed, on the inside of patriarchy know from long and bitter experience that this domination has penetrated every aspect of women’s lives and experience to make them dependent upon men for everything and to diminish and demean their true humanity.  Thus a long struggle by women assisted by some men (which still goes on) has been necessary to begin to shake off this domination.  In modern times feminism has become an important expression of this rising of women from under the rule of men into freedom and equality.

      Feminist Christians, and it is they who are the leaders in the struggle for women’s ordination, believe that patriarchy, even where the fathers/men were compassionate, has always been evil.  Their starting point is the text in Genesis 1:27. “God created human beings in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”  For them this underpins and underlines the doctrine of human equality to which they are already committed.  Men and women are equal, they say, and thus males are not to dominate females nor females dominate males.  Therefore any form of patriarchal rule by men (even good men) is wrong; when exercised by sinful men it is positively evil and oppressive of women.

      Now the Old Testament on a plain reading appears to present God (to state the minimum) as mildly supportive of patriarchy.  For the descriptions of Israelite and Jewish society in the Books of Moses, the historical books and even the Psalms and Prophets appear to take for granted that, under God, men are to be the heads of families and society, with women as the obedient and submissive helpers.  Further, only men could be priests in the temple and official teachers of the Law: there was no place for women in official religion and they had very few rights in Jewish law.  Because of all this the feminist Christian feels obliged, on the basis of the conviction that total equality is God’s will, to claim that there was a major misunderstanding of God’s will by the men and women of Israel or, worse, a terrible rejection of God’s will by the men of the tribes of Israel. if there had not been such a misunderstanding/rejection of the divine plan, then women would have been far more prominent in the pages of the Bible and there would have been more feminine titles for the Godhead in the prayers and worship of the Jews.

      Of course, it is admitted that the Old Testament is not a complete disaster.  There were bright spots in the history of Israel where women were allowed to function freely – e.g. there is Deborah who led the tribes in battle (Judges 4) and Ruth who has a whole book named after her.  However the general picture is one of male dominance and female submission.  Often the women were not aware of their position of submission and domination by men because they had never experienced anything other than this sad state of affairs.  Thus the Old Testament cannot be called the Word of God as it stands.  In fact, it is naive to call it so: yet it is valuable in many ways for its unique religious and moral insights.  As long as the reader realises that it is essentially a collection of books written by men, who enjoyed domination in society at the time they had their experience of God, then she or he will not be led to conclude that its commendation of patriarchy is to be taken as the will of God for us today.

      Feminists accept that the New Testament has a good number of examples, insights and doctrines which they believe support that equality which God intends for human society.  They still insist however that the general framework of the message of Jesus and the teaching and practice of the early Church are that of patriarchy.  They point out that the best N.T. scholars have shown that Jesus himself did not set out to remove patriarchy only to reform it and in this approach he was followed by the apostles.  This reformist rather than destructive approach of Jesus explains what seems to be two opposite strands in the Gospels and Epistles.  There are rejections of typical Jewish patriarchy – e.g. when Jesus calls women as disciples and allows them to minister to his needs, as he teaches the woman of Samaria by the well, and as he appears in his resurrected, immortalised body to the women before the men.  There are further rejections of typical patriarchy when the apostle Paul compares the marriage of husband and wife to the marriage of Christ and his Church.  “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for it...” (Ephesians 5:25).  However, on the other hand, there are examples not only of the acceptance of patriarchy as the norm but also as in accord with the will of God.  For example, when Paul tells women to be silent in church and to be taught at home by their husbands (1 Corinthians 14) and when he also tells slaves to be obedient to their masters (Colossians 3:18ff).

      Further, feminists point out that Jesus gave a new lease of life to patriarchy by his constant addressing of God in heaven as “Abba [FATHER]”.  Only someone who thought in terms of the dominance and rule of fathers (even if they were compassionate men) could have expressed his unique relationship with God in terms of fatherhood and given as a model prayer the “Our Father...”!  Further, they say that Paul made matters worse by referring to “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” and teaching the Gentile churches to pray to God as “Father”.  For, if people are to be taught to pray daily to “Our Father...” in the name of Jesus, the Lord, then they are going to think it right not only that men should dominate women but also appropriate and acceptable that women be second-class citizens in church and society at large.

      Thus the New Testament like the Old Testament fails the test of commending without hesitation and without qualification equality for males and females.  Therefore while it cannot be read and received as the actual written Word of God, it can nevertheless be seen to be a book in which there is much that is of great religious value.  Here and there, there are great insights – such as that of Paul when he declares to the Galatians that in Christ there is perfect equality of male and female (3:28).

      The net result of the judgement that patriarchy is evil is much more than the rejection of the traditional doctrine that the Bible is the written Word of God.  It also means the rejection of such modern doctrines of the Bible as that associated with the name of Karl Barth – that the Bible is the written witness to the living Word of God (Jesus the Christ).  Therefore everything in the Bible is open to question and ought to be tested to see whether or not it is supportive of the equality of the sexes and critical of the evils of patriarchy.

      Because neither Jesus nor the apostles dealt a death blow to patriarchy and merely sought to reform it, they left open the possibility that their successors would allow the old style of patriarchy to return.  And this is what happened, say the feminists.  This is why there were no female clergy (presbyters or bishops) in the post-apostolic church and why eventually senior bishops came to be called “patriarchs” (e.g. in Jerusalem, Constantínople, Venice and Rome).  Further the language used in the public Liturgy and in family prayers (addressing God as Father through Jesus the Lord) continued to commend the dominance of patriarchy in society at large.  The Church merely reflected with minor modifications the evil patriarchy of Roman society.  It did nothing for the cause of true equality of the sexes and never even so much as considered the ordination of women. 

Language

      The dominance of men over women is reflected in everyday language, the feminists maintain.  On first appearance they seem to have a good point.  They often cite the generic use of “man/men” to mean “human being(s)”.  Further, we are all familiar with the attempts to change such words as “chairman” into “chair” or “chairperson” in order to try to lose the masculinity implied by “chairman”.

      In the Church of England the Liturgical Commission under pressure from the feminist lobby has produced a report entitled Making Women Visible (1989) which attempts the task of removing from the newest prayer book of the Church, the Alternative Service Book (1980), what (from a feminist viewpoint) is called “excluding language”.  It is now common to hear Christian women say that they feel excluded from the liturgy of the Church of which they are members because that liturgy proceeds as if there were only men in the congregation.  They complain that entering into the traditional language of prayer, however nourishing it may be in other ways, as women they experience themselves as absent, invisible, anomalous and even alien.  So they have to make a continuous translation into inclusive language of the language which is male-oriented.  Thus it is not surprising that they claim that this is distracting.  Worse still, being surrounded by excluding language, they feel rejected in the very place where they seek acceptance at the deepest level of their beings.

      The Commission had to be receptive to such cries from the heart of women, and it worked hard to show how offending words and phrases could be removed and replaced by non-exclusive or inclusive words and phrases.  Thus much space is taken within the booklet with lists of changes.  Its work got a mixed response in the General Synod and in reviews partly because the subject is exceedingly complex and cannot be reduced to the simple “either/or” of some feminist propaganda.  For, even if it were possible to eradicate all so-called generic, sexist and excluding language from church services, there still remains the question as to whether the resulting, non-excluding language used would have any beauty or carry clear meaning.  There is no guarantee either that making all these changes now will satisfy the feminist lobby or prove not to be out of date by the time they have been printed as options within prayer books.

      The relationship between the use of non-exclusive (or inclusive) language for human beings and the ordination of women is straightforward.  The use of exclusive/sexist language over the centuries, it is claimed, has served to help exclude women from being considered for priesthood and continues to do so today.  When women are ordained however, the new state of affairs in the Church will need to be matched by a change in the language used of humanity.  The renewed language must include the persons who are in fact presiding at the Eucharist.  Women will certainly not want to say “who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven” but rather “who for us and our salvation” or “who for human beings and their salvation”.

      There is a further dimension to the use of language.  In worship we not only speak of humanity we also speak of and address the Godhead.  Feminists are logical and they see that to achieve their goal of equality there must be changes in what they often now call “God-talk”.  Their argument is quite simple.  The masculine (even macho) titles and names for God (e.g. “Lord”, “King”, “Father” and “Son”) came into existence because men from within patriarchy thought of God in patriarchal terms.  So it was natural that they chose to address God as if he were an infinite and eternal Lord and King of armies in heaven.  And it was natural that Jesus should choose the word “Abba” (Aramaic for “Father”) to convey his sense of oneness and yet submission to God in heaven.  Because they see the origin of these names of God as arising from human experience within patriarchy, they judge that there is nothing particularly sacred about them.  There is no reason, they believe, to keep on using them, especially when it is remembered that they actually serve to buttress the foundations of patriarchy in church, home and society.  So they propose either that these be dropped completely or used sparingly along with feminine words such as “Mother” and “Sister” and with a full complement of such general non-excluding words for God as “Saviour, Sanctifier, Redeemer, Creator and Preserver”.

      The results of this call for inclusive language for the Godhead are beginning to make their impact on modern Anglican Liturgies.  For example, in the Introduction to A New Zealand Prayer Book (1990) we are informed that: “the dialogue about inclusive language has now moved beyond merely referring to humanity...  We have gradually been compelled in our pilgrimage to start searching for ways to address God in language which is other than masculine and triumphal...  What we present is one fragile moment in the relentless on-going process of liturgical change.”  In the Introduction to the latest experimental services in the American Episcopal Church (in Prayer Book Studies 30) we are told that “many of the images used in the liturgy are ‘masculine’ and have been historically conditioned by the patriarchal nature not only of Jewish society but of much of Christian society.  If we believe that this reflects cultural bias and is not part of the gospel, then the deliberate introduction of complementary ‘feminine’ images to our worship is desirable.”  This is the policy adopted in some of the new liturgies.  Further, there is an alternative to the Gloria Patri which avoids masculine words.

Honor and glory to the holy and undivided Trinity,

God who creates, redeems and inspires;

One in Three and Three in One,

for ever and ever.  Amen.

      In avoiding “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, this form of words (we may note) also tends to depersonalise the Holy Trinity.

      Thus the relationship between the ordination of women and inclusive language for the Godhead is easy to see, say the feminists.  Over the centuries the describing and addressing of God as if he were a great macho, male, Father-King in the heavens has served to keep women in submission.  Further, it has contributed to the doctrine that only the male can rightly represent the “eternal Male” in his heaven.  However, when a woman is presiding at the Eucharist she does not have to address God as if she were living in a patriarchy.  She can use expressions which recognise the feminine in the Godhead and which celebrate her own femininity.

      Feminist Christians or supporters of feminism (who are of course both male and female) do not seem to be worried that changes in the naming and addressing of God will mean changes in our concepts and thus our doctrine of God.  I think that they are so keen to win the battle for total equality of the sexes that they do not see that they are forcing doctrinal changes which include not only the setting aside of the Bible as the record of divine self-revelation but also the rejection of the received, classical doctrine of the Godhead as a Trinity of Persons. 

The maleness of Jesus

      Sometimes the impression is given by Christian feminists that they are a little embarrassed that the eternal Word, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, became a human being as a male.  They wish to set aside the traditional teaching that the maleness of Jesus is a sacred sign.  Therefore their general approach is to insist that what matters about Jesus is not that he is a male – for as Saviour and Redeemer he could have been female – but that he is human being.  His maleness is thus put on the same level as the colour of his eyes and hair, his height and weight and his complexion.  They insist that it was the Word made flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity as human being who saved mankind by his life, death and resurrection.  The fact that he was a male only gave a particular style to the way he was the Saviour: it made no essential contribution as such.  For, they insist, if his maleness is a primary feature of the humanity taken by the eternal Word then he is only really the Saviour of men.  Since he is the Saviour of all it is as human being that he is to be seen and appreciated.

      Further, some feminists invite us to reflect upon what is the essence of the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion.  In a country where rice not bread is the staple diet, is it permissible to change the bread for rice?  Is it legitimate for rice to become the sacred sign of the body of Jesus instead of the bread (since of course Jesus himself used bread not rice)?  Does the essence of Holy Communion reside in the use of bread alone or can it be conveyed through rice?  If it is the basic food in a culture which becomes the sign then to use rice is not only permissible but right.  Thus it may be argued that the sacred sign in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, is not his maleness but his humanity and thus either a male priest or a female priest may be his representative.  Of course this kind of reasoning harmonises with the feminist claim that human beings as male and female are equal in nature and identity, their only real difference being their sexual function.  And it also explains the reluctance of feminist Christians to address Jesus as “Lord” which they see as a very masculine term and an aspect of patriarchy. 

Conclusion

      Those who advocate these changes, and in part seek to implement them where possible, do so, of course, from the vantage point of having first known and accepted orthodoxy before moving on to novel ways and teaching.  But many of those who follow them and begin their Christian experience within this novelty will not have the stabilising and solid rock of orthodoxy upon which to stand (and to which to cling!) as they engage in experimental worship and develop new doctrines.  Who can tell therefore into what possible heresies and errors as well as morality the new generation with the novel teaching will be led by the powerful winds of contemporary culture?

      For the total agenda, on which there appears the ordination of women as apparently (but not in reality) the major item, is formidable.  It is a call for massive changes to be made in Christian liturgy, doctrine and practice.  In fact the programme is not only radical it is revolutionary.  If it were adopted in full the result would be a religion which had few marks of that historic and dynamic Faith which prays to “the Father” in the name of the “Son”, our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.