Let Women VII

A Member's Bulletin Board. In most cases items posted here originated as email, except as noted. As a Member you are free to submit items to post here. Send to webmaster)

Let Women Be Women:

Equality, Ministry & Ordination

by Peter Toon

Gracewing. Fowler Wright Books, 1990

Chapter 5 – By whose authority?

Christian feminists wholeheartedly work for the ordination of women primarily because of the weight and authority of contemporary experience. It seems so obvious to them that modern views and insights on the equality of women are to be preferred to those of yesterday (be the “yesterday” that of the first part of the twentieth century or the apostolic age in the first century of the Christian era). Today whether we be feminists or not we must surely admit without hesitation and qualification that women have proved that they are capable of doing all the jobs and serving in all the professions which were normally done by/served in by men. Further, we can confidently look forward to more women, even those who also raise a family, taking their place on equal terms with men in all parts of the work-force.

However, let us be clear that the real issue or controversy over ordaining women is not about what women are doing and can do, or even about what women have achieved. It comes down to the question: Is it the will of God for his Church, of which Jesus Christ is the Head, that its ordained presbyters/priests and bishops be both male and female from now onwards? Since no-one apparently questions that God intends men to be in the ordained ministry – they have been priests and bishops now for nearly two millennia – the question becomes: Is it the will of God for his Church, of which Jesus Christ is the Head, that its ordained presbyters/priests and bishops from now onwards include women?

The authority of modern experience

Having set the question we now face the problem of where to look for the answer. It is possible to look immediately to modern culture and experience, as do the Christian feminists, and see there the answer proclaimed very clearly in terms of what women have achieved and are achieving. In theological terms this is then put in terms of God speaking to us in and through contemporary experience and insisting that this is (in certain circumstances) as valuable a source of knowledge of God’s will as the pages of sacred Scripture or the wisdom of the saints in bygone centuries. Further, together with the claim that God’s will is declared through the achievements of women this century goes the related claim that this is a genuine development of doctrine, moving the Church on from the positions held in the past into a new era of freedom and theology.

I have just put the argument from experience in the strong form as presented by feminists; but, it is more commonly encountered in a weaker form, which is held by many who would not wish to be called feminists. In this form, it is accepted and admitted that the knowledge of God’s will is to be gained (as Anglicans have consistently affirmed since the sixteenth century) from the study of Scripture and Tradition using sanctified reason. However, the function of reason is extended from working only on the meaning of Scripture interpreted with the help and insights of the teaching of the Church in Creeds and Confessions of Faith [Tradition], to include the drawing of conclusions from reflecting upon contemporary experience in society. In fact Tradition itself is now often defined in such a way as to include our present experience in God’s world and to urge us to discern what the Holy Spirit is saying to human beings within their contemporary experience.

Therefore, with this evaluation of Tradition, it is reasonable to “discern” from modern experience that women are equal in nature and identity to men (except in their sexual functions) and are thus rightful candidates for the ordained ministry. With this in mind it is possible then to return to Holy Scripture and Church History and look for indications there that the ordaining of women is God’s will. Not a few of the books published in the last decade which argue (often in a gentle and attractive way) for the ordination of women as priests appear to have been written in this way. In other words (to use the American expression) the “mindset” is fixed before the study of Scripture and the historical teaching and experience of the Church is undertaken. Further, because the equality of women in society is a theme which we all accept (indeed a theme which we feel a moral obligation to accept) then our “mindset” or presupposition as we read and study the Bible has a powerful influence in all our thinking and reasoning.

Is there anything wrong with this approach in either the strong or the weak form? I would say that there is, because it tends to discount or to forget a fundamental and consistent theme in the Bible and Christian teaching over the centuries. This is that the world of culture, work and leisure is more often opposed to the perfect will of God than in harmony with it. While we are to give unto Caesar that which belongs to him and be exemplary citizens, we are also to give unto God that which belongs to him and be exemplary Christians. To be such we have to bear in mind that the apostle urges us to present ourselves to God as “a living sacrifice, dedicated and fit for his acceptance, the worship offered by mind and heart” and to “conform no longer to the pattern of this present world but be transformed by the renewal of [our] minds” for only “then you will be able to discern the will of God and to know what is good, acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:1–2). The “present world” at its best is a long way from what God intended and what will be in “the new heaven and the new earth” of the age to come. Further, we cannot ignore the fact that in our baptism we are dedicated and ordained as members of Christ’s army to fight against the world, the flesh and the devil. This surely stands as a warning to us that we are unlikely to know God’s will from observing contemporary society alone for it is the very sphere where the world (humanity organised in such a way as to forget and disobey God), the flesh (human nature directed to selfish and ignoble ends) and Satan (the enemy of Christ and all baptized Christians) flourish and are encountered!

This is not to say that God does not and cannot speak to the listening ear through the ethos and events of modern society and culture. Prophets of Israel and prophets in the Christian Church have believed they discerned by God’s inspiration a message from heaven in the events of history. Rather it is to insist that we are only capable of discerning God’s will in contemporary movements after our minds have been informed and guided by that Revelation of God’s will recorded in Sacred Scripture and received and experienced in the Church over many centuries. We need to remember that the Anglican formula of Scripture, tradition and reason begins with Scripture and not with unaided reason and so to the Bible we now turn.

The authority of Holy Scripture

Since the apostolic age and through every century the Church has believed, taught and confessed that the Bible is holy and set apart from all other books because it contains the record of the self-revelation of God to Israel, through Jesus Christ and his apostles. “The sacred writings have power to make you wise and lead you to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” because “all inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living” (2 Timothy 3:15–16). These claims to the authority of the Bible in our beliefs about God, salvation, and the correct behaviour of disciples of Jesus Christ, have been consistently upheld by Greek/Russian Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. That is, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church has taught that what is Christian truth and error in fundamental matters cannot be known without careful study of the Bible, and the New Testament in particular.

Thus the “mind of Christ” has always been associated with that Truth to which the New Testament as a whole points and witnesses. Therefore to know the mind of Christ on any basic matter the Church has always turned first to the Bible in order to ascertain what is there taught and commended. At its best this method may be described as sitting at the feet of the Lord Jesus as listening and obedient disciples, meditating upon the New Testament in order to hear what he has to say in and through it by the Holy Spirit. The books of the Bible on their own and separated from the exalted Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit who comes to us from the Father through the Son have nothing to tell us; but, read under the Lordship of the Son and by the illumination of the Spirit and to glorify the Father, these pages become to believing souls the living words of God.

Of course the Bible does not give direct and explicit guidance on all topics; yet it does lay down principles which can be applied to most if not all situations and problems. In the case of women, however, there is no doubt that the Church from the earliest to very recent days of the Christian era has believed, taught and confessed that the New Testament specifically forbids the ordination of women as presbyters/priests and bishops. (However, since Phoebe is called by Paul “a fellow-Christian who is a minister [literally “deacon”] in the church at Cenchreae” [Romans 16:1] and for other considerations there has always been the acceptance of the possibility of women deacons in the Church, even though that possibility has sometimes been remote.)

Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant teachers have taken certain facts, indications and teaching in the New Testament as demonstrating that the mind and will of Jesus Christ is for an all-male ordained ministry to be pastors and shepherds of Christian congregations. Here are some of the passages of the New Testament in which they saw clearly the mind of Christ expressed.

(a) Jesus, the Master, chose only men to be his apostles (Mark 3:13–19), shared the Passover and first Lord’s Supper with them (Mark 14:17–25) and gave to them his special commission to forgive sins in his name (John 20:19–23).

“Jesus appointed Twelve to be his companions and to be sent out to proclaim the Gospel, with authority to drive out demons.” In Thursday of Holy Week “Jesus came in the evening to the house with the Twelve: during supper he took bread... took a cup.” And on the evening of the first Easter Day Jesus came to them behind locked doors and “breathed on them, saying ‘Receive the Holy Spirit! If you forgive anyone’s sins they are forgiven....”

(b) The apostles chose only men to be their pupils/assistants (2 Timothy 1:6) and the pastors [= elders or presbyters or bishops] of the newly-founded churches (Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1–7; 5:17–19; Titus 1:5–7; & 1 Peter 5:1–5).

Timothy was urged “to stir up the gift from God which was his through the laying on of” Paul’s hands. The leaders from the church in Ephesus were told by Paul “to keep guard over yourselves and over all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has given you charge, as shepherds of the church of the Lord”. In similar vein Peter appealed to the pastors in a large region (1 Peter 1:1) to “look after the flock of God whose shepherds you are” and to “do it not under compulsion but willingly as God would have it” done.

(c) The apostle Paul taught that in the Christian family the husband is the loving head of his wife (Ephesians 5:21ff) and in the local church women are not to exercise any ministry which places them in authority over men (1 Corinthians 14:33ff & 1 Timothy 2:11ff).

“Women must be subject to their husbands in everything” while husbands are “to love [their] wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it”. Further “as in all congregations of God’s people, women should keep silent at the meeting” and “if there is something they want to know they can ask their husbands at home.” This is because “their role is to learn, listening quietly and with due submission” for women are “not permitted to teach or dictate to the men”.

All this seemed very clear to women and men throughout the history of the Church, and it may still seem clear, presented in this way, to some modern readers.

For many today, however, who have studied the New Testament in even a preliminary academic way it does not seem clear. This is because in most modern biblical commentaries on these passages, as well as in special studies of them, this traditional interpretation is challenged. It is also challenged in official church publications such as study-documents from the World Council of Churches and from the House of Bishops of the Church of England. In fact it is often set aside in favour of new interpretations (especially in academic literature) which cause these texts to lose their power as arguments for an all-male ordained ministry.

Two themes running through these modern interpretations are patriarchy and local circumstances/context. So, for example, it is said that Jesus chose men because that was the proper course of action in his day when patriarchy was the norm. The fact that he did so does not necessarily mean that in later times the Church is bound to a decision which belongs to a patriarchal society and culture. And, with respect to Paul’s words to the churches he founded, it is argued that if the local circumstances are really understood, and other matters in the religious and social context are taken into consideration, it can be seen that Paul is only providing teaching for a specific, local situation which is not intended to be binding for all time and places.

Thus today we have to decide whether to follow that interpretation which has been held virtually everywhere and by all (until very recent times) or a modern one which claims that the old one is unscientific and produced by men (in sincerity) to support their own position. Certainly to accept one or other of the modern ones makes for an easy life in the modern church scene. This is because in our culture any statement that implies the inequality of women in terms of identity and vocation, or their submission even to the gentlest of men, is treated with amazement, even horror by a vocal minority.

At this stage it is important that I say what has often been said but needs to be emphasised. It is this. To hold that the clear teaching of Scripture and thus the mind and will of Christ is for an all-male ordained ministry of priest and bishop is not to declare that women are not equal to men. The same New Testament which [apparently] portrays a male headship in marriage and church also [clearly] insists that there is absolutely no discrimination whatsoever against women in terms of God’s relationship with them as Creator to created and Redeemer to redeemed. How could there be so when the eternal Son took flesh and human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary and was not ashamed to be known as her Son!

Women are baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ regenerates them and comes to dwell in them; they are adopted by God into his family, the household of faith; by the blood of Christ they have access to the Father in prayer and spiritual fellowship and their prayers, trust, love and obedience are as acceptable to God as those of men; and they are called to be ministers each day through serving God in and through serving the neighbour and in proclaiming by word and deed the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Men and women, both being made in the image of God and after his likeness, are equal before God in terms of relationship to the Godhead; but they are not identical for as two different sexes God has given to them in their equality different vocations and they are to complement one another. However, complementarity does not mean interchangeability.

Therefore we conclude that if there is a case for an all-male ordained ministry of priests and bishops (which we believe there is) it will and must rest firmly upon biblical foundations. All other possible foundations than the words of God-in-Christ (Matthew 7:24–27) will prove as sinking sand when the raging storms created by the world, the flesh and the devil assail them. Yet in the mercy and provision of God there are attached to these foundations the testimony and teaching of the Church over the centuries – Tradition.

Tradition

When the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven his disciples did not mourn and complain of his absence. Rather they rejoiced and waited for the gift of the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete, the Counsellor, the Comforter – see John 14–16) whom they knew would be in and with them always to mediate to them the presence and the mind of the exalted Lord Jesus. The same Spirit, whom Paul calls “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8), is given to and is present in the whole fellowship of baptised, believing Christians to lead them in worship and witness, faith and good works.

Therefore the Church of God is called both as a whole and in its manifestation as local congregations “the temple of the Holy Spirit”: further the individual believer is described in the same way (1 Corinthians 3:16–17; 6:19). Led by the Spirit the Church of God throughout history has expressed its relationship to God the Father through Jesus Christ in a variety of ways – liturgies for all occasions, creeds and confessions of faith, hymns and music, symbols and signs (e.g. the sign of the cross), architecture and the plastic arts, sermons, books, evangelism, the founding of churches and monastic communities, works of mercy and social service and even from time to time the readiness to accept martyrdom for Christ’s sake. Bearing this in mind we may say that Tradition occurs in the Church’s proclamation of the Gospel, her liturgy, and the service she renders to God and the neighbour.

Because the Church is composed of sinners on their way to full salvation rather than of saints already totally saved, Tradition is never perfect and aspects of it can be and have been severely distorted through human frailty, error and sinfulness. This is why the well-known rule of St Vincent of Lérins (5th Cent.) has often been recalled and used to distinguish the vital and primary Tradition from secondary aspects and distorting accretions. The rule states that “in the Catholic Church one must see to it that we hold fast to that which was believed everywhere, always and by all; for that is catholic in the true and proper sense.” If we use this rule with respect to the question of whether or not the ordination of women as priests is part of the Catholic Faith then there is absolutely no doubt as to what the answer is. The Catholic Faith is that only men, called by God, are to be appointed as priests and bishops in the Church.

The only way that this claim can be set aside is by proving beyond reasonable doubt that the Church has been so influenced by the [evil] patriarchal society, first of Palestine, then of the Mediterranean world, and finally of western Europe that the eyes and ears of all, (including the saints) have been closed to the promptings of the Lord Jesus Christ (through the Paraclete who indwells the Church and the individual soul) to open the door for women to be ordained. This is of course a tall order. If it is at all possible I suspect it will be easier to prove the case of the Church in the Middle Ages, when it had an apparently triumphalist mentality, than in the second and third centuries when the Church was often severely persecuted and when the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the Church.

I have noticed that a common theme in books advocating women’s ordination is that the [supposed] insights of Jesus and the apostles pointing towards the total equality of women in the Church were quickly lost by the Early Church in the second and third centuries. The reasons given are that the social pressure of a patriarchal society, and the desire to conform to it overwhelmed the will to follow the lead that Jesus had set in his words and deeds. To me this is puzzling because the Church which was ready in that period to be persecuted, and to provide martyrs for the sake of Jesus and his Gospel, would surely have been ready to stand over against the patriarchal society of that time and give to women the opportunity to be presbyters (priests) in the congregations of Christ’s flock, if it believed that such was the will and mind of Jesus Christ!

In claiming that Tradition speaks with one voice to confirm what Holy Scripture specifically teaches, I am not however claiming that everything which theologians and bishops have said about women is to be received and believed. Thomas Aquinas, the great theologian of the Middle Ages, for example, seemed to think that women were inferior in nature to men. “The male is more perfect in reason and stronger in virtue” than woman: and “woman is subject to man because of her weakness of nature both in spiritual vigour and in bodily strength.” Other theologians spoke of the imperfection of the female mind! Such views are false accretions to the living Tradition which derive from Roman law and its legacy. They can and must be thrown away and forgotten, leaving behind the central teaching.

Finally, I hope it is now clear why the claim is made [both by those who oppose and even some of those who would like to see the ordination of women as priests] that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion should not even plan to ordain women as priests until a General Council of the Church (involving the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and such other Churches as may send members) has met to study, debate and come to a common mind on this matter.

Conclusion

Having reviewed the evidence we are therefore forced to the conclusion that any reasoned study of the New Testament and of Tradition serves only to support the arguments of those who are opposed to the ordination of women as priests. The apostolic and post-apostolic Church believed that the Lord Jesus Christ intended only men should be pastors of his flock, and we today should not act contrary to this. By the use of the same reason the conclusion is also reached that where the weight of contemporary wisdom stands in opposition to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition, the Church must go with the latter rather than the former. However powerful may be the attraction and influence of modern culture and however skilful people are in presenting social, secular and pragmatic reasons justifying a change in the doctrine and practice of the Church, the testimony of Scripture and Tradition will not go away, will not be neutralised and must be taken into account and followed.