Ordination?

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)

The Biblical Vision Regarding Women's Ordination part 1
Rev'd Dr Rodney A. Whitacre

This article originally appeared in The Evangelical Catholic, vol. 16 (March/April and May/June, 1994), pgs. 6-19, under the title, "The Biblical Vision." It is broken into 4 parts: part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4.

AS CHRISTIANS, WE ARE TO manifest the life of God within this world. Our life flows from the Holy Trinity, and our relationships with one another should reflect the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In the Trinity itself, the Son and the Spirit are at the same time equal to the Father and yet subordinate to Him. In St John's Gospel, Jesus says both, "The Father and I are one" (10.30) and "The Father is greater than I" (14.28). In His Incarnation and especially His Passion and death, Jesus shows us both the godliness of subordination and submission and the sacrificial nature of
godly authority.

According to Scripture, as we shall see, the godly relationship between male and female is crucial in manifesting the loving subordination and equality of the Trinity. Therefore, the issue of men and women in ministry touches very significant truths, including the nature of the Church and the manifestation of God's life in this world.

Unfortunately, the relationship revealed in Scripture is not always found in theChurch. Many Christian communities practice either a false hierarchialism or a false egalitarianism. Instead of reflecting the very life of the Godhead we too often live like the world, in one form or another.
The present swing toward egalitarianism legitimately criticizes the falsehierarchialism characteristic of Church life in the past, which too often confusedheadship and authority with domination and power. It is an understandable reaction, but in itself it is an overreaction and a false path. We must retrace
our steps if we are to walk according to the revelation given in Scripture. This paper attempts to show the main reasons we are presently walking on the wrong road.

I do not know in detail what a faithful embodiment of the Biblical vision would look like in our time and place. The Church is an otherworldly reality manifesting itself in the present age. The many valid forms which that life may take in our world are known only as Christians wait upon God in company with the whole communion of saints, past as well as present, together search the Scriptures and the Tradition, and dare to live sacrificial, counter-cultural lives.

I have no doubt that fallen men and women find it very difficult to live out Scripture's subtle mixture of equality and subordination. As Chesterton said of Christianity, it has not been tried and found wanting, it was found difficult, and left untried. This paper is in part a call to recapture the Biblical
vision, avoiding the male domination of the past and the egalitarian over-reaction of the present. I make this call in the confidence that the Biblical vision was given to us for our good, and that only by obeying it will we find true happiness.

The Main Reason

THE MAIN REASON TO reject women's ordination, I believe, is that although Scripture affirms women as full and equal servants of God, it teaches that women should not serve as the head of Christian community.

Although it does not teach the superiority of men, and condemns domination by men, it does teach that the principal authority, or headship, within the Christian community is to be exercised by men. In what follows I offer a brief discussion of what I think is the coherent view of Scripture, though it is no more than an outline.

Because it is a difficult subject, Christians trying to be faithful to God's revelation must work very hard to understand it. In particular, we must study the relevant texts very carefully, and thoughtfully weigh the competing proposals for how these texts are to be understood. Readers would profit from looking up the texts as we discuss them and reading them in context. I will address important textual questions in the footnotes which, though important, may be of less interest to some readers.

I do not believe that the issue is unsettled in Scripture, as some (on both sides of the issue) claim. This claim seems to depend on the fact that nowhere does Scripture directly say "Women shall not be ordained."

But the teaching of the headship of men in the family and the Church is clear, and it is clear that the New Testament's understanding of headship in the Church corresponds to ordination to the priesthood and episcopate. As with many teachings in Scripture, the teaching is clear, but only if we are willing to take the time and energy to read and reflect carefully, with prayerful openness
to God's leading.

Points of Agreement

ON MANY POINTS I AGREE with those who believe women's ordination to be God's will. First, the Church has often failed to manifest the Biblical teaching on this matter and turned headship into dominance. This perversion needs to be reformed. Second, Scripture does teach equality and mutuality between men and women and does not allow the belief that women are inferior to men.

Third, both Jesus and St Paul did upset the patriarchal assumptions of the first century. In the New Testament, women are treated with great respect, seen as disciples of equal value with men, praised for their great faith, have received the Spirit, are privileged witnesses to the Resurrection, and perform recognized service for the Kingdom.

Fourth, discipleship and leadership within the Church are both positions of servanthood, not domination. Contrary to a worldly understanding, even leaders are called to love, respect, and sacrifice themselves for those put under them. In these matters our chief exemplar, apart from our Lord Himself, is a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Though we agree on much, the significance of these points of agreement looks different to those who accept women's ordination and those who do not. Some believe that they mean that all ministries and offices in the Church must be open to women. I believe that while God intends the role of principal leader in the Church to be limited to men, these truths help determine how that
leadership should be exercised.

The Argument

I WILL ARGUE THAT women ought not to be ordained for three reasons: the egalitarian interpretation misinterprets the texts and is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture (using Galatians 3:28 as an example); women are nowhere described in the New Testament as holding positions of headship or authority; and the New Testament explicitly teaches that men are to be the head of the family and Church. Thus, the supposed contradiction between the headship of men and the
equality of men and women in Christ is an assumption imposed on the New Testament, and in fact perverts its life-giving revelation.

I think this can be shown exegetically, from the Bible itself, but the great weight of tradition supports this interpretation. Also, some social scientists now argue that a division of roles between men and women corresponding to headship and subordination is both natural (even biological) and a necessity for healthy families and society. [3] As Anglicans, we should note this confirmation from Tradition and Reason.

My examination of the egalitarian interpretation begins with Galatians 3.28, the text most frequently cited in support of women's ordination. I will suggest briefly why it supports the equality of men and women before God, but not the interchangeability of their roles in family and Church. I will then quickly survey what the New Testament teaches about women in ministry and about headship and authority.

Galatians 3.28

THE MOST POPULAR VERSE cited by those who believe women should be ordained is Galatians 3.28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
This is presumably the most popular verse because it seems to say that the distinctions between men and women have been erased in Christ and thus women may have headship in the Church, or even that headship is eliminated altogether. It is held to be of greater or more universal authority than the teachings on women's subordination found in the Pastoral Epistles and elsewhere. Thus, if we find that this verse does not teach the elimination of sexual differences, if in fact that it fits with the rest of the Biblical teaching, we will have done much to establish the Biblical teaching on this subject.

This verse is a wonderful expression of the truth that all who are in Christ are such by faith and baptism (vv. 26-27). The distinctions of race, status, and sex do not determine who can meet God in Christ, nor do they divide those who are in Christ. As St Paul says in a similar passage, "Christ is all, and in all" (Colossave ceased to exist for those who are in Christ. Such an interpretation of Galatians 3.28 is called into question both by the context of this verse and by virtually everything St Paul says elsewhere about each of these distinctions. Here Paul is explaining our access to Christ and relationship with Him, not roles in the family and the Church. Our equal access to and relation
with Christ change our relationships with one another, but do not eliminate them, as we shall see.

That is, while Galatians 3.28 declares the good news of the unity of all Christians in Christ, it does not obliterate all distinctions within the Body of Christ. Instead, it changes the way the three groups relate to one another, in keeping with patterns revealed in Scripture. This will become clear if we look at what Paul elsewhere says about these relationships.

Jews, Greeks, and Women

JEW AND GREEK continue to exist as distinct groups within the Church and each has a distinct role to play in salvation history, as Paul explains in Romans 9-11 (see also 1.16; 2.9-10). The Church has not changed from being Jewish to being gentile, contrary to appearances and the opinion of many throughout the ages. It is neither Jewish nor Greek, not because the two have been completely blended, but because it is composed of both in Christ, each with a distinct role to play.

Likewise, master and slave in the Church continue to be master and slave (Ephesians 6.5-9; I Corinthians 7.20-24). When Paul wrote Philemon about his runaway slave Onesimus, he does not tell him to free Onesimus because all distinctions between slaves and masters have been erased in Christ. He says that Onesimus is still Philemon's slave, but now he is also his brother (Philemon 16).

This change will obviously make an enormous difference in how they relate to one another, but the distinction of role still remains. Indeed, in Colossians Paul makes a statement very similar to Galatians 3.28: "Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all," but then goes on almost immediately to
describe some of those differences (3.11; cf. 3.22-4.1).

In the same way, the distinction between male and female continues to exist. The egalitarian interpretation of Galatians 3.28 is contradicted by I Corinthians 11.2-16 and 14.34-35; Ephesians 5.21-33; Colossians 3.18-19; and I Timothy 2.9-15, as we will see shortly.

Thus, Paul clearly believes that the distinctions have not been done away with in Christ. His "There is no" does not refer to the roles played by these different groups. There are, however, some important differences between these three relationships. I will briefly consider these differences, for they will help us understand the significance of the distinctions that do remain in these areas.

Slaves, Gentiles, and Women

IT IS OFTEN SUGGESTED that as the Church was slow to realize that slavery has been abolished in Christ (supposedly the teaching of Galatians 3.28), it has been even slower to recognize that the differences of role between men and women have also been abolished in Christ.

But the distinction between slave and free is different from that between male and female. Scripture does not teach that slavery is of divine origin, nor that it is part of the order of creation, as it does of male headship. God is not said in Scripture to have specified the roles between slaves and masters.
Indeed, the Bible views slavery as undesirable (e.g., Exodus 21; Leviticus 25; and Paul himself in I Corinthians 7), something it never states or even implies of male headship. What God has done is to regulate the conduct of slaves and masters, in keeping with their new relationship in Christ, for as long as that relationship lasted. Thus, in coming to oppose slavery the Church was not dissolving a
distinction of divine origin, as it does in dissolving the distinction between male and female.

In the same way, the admission of the Gentiles to the Church is also often cited as an analogy to the admission of women to headship. As with slavery, however, this is entirely inappropriate. God had chosen Israel and separated her from the rest of the nations, but the other nations were also a part of His plan from the beginning. From the very moment He began to set apart a special people, He had the salvation of the other nations in mind as well. He said to Abraham atssed" (Genesis 12.3).

The inclusion of the Gentiles was indeed the cause of great dispute in the early Church. But the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus are both clear that the Gentiles were a part of God's plan from the beginning, and God revealed to His Church through His Apostles the mystery of His plan (cf. Ephesians 3.1-13). No teaching in the Bible supports the headship of women the way texts
support the inclusion of the Gentiles.

Thus, in both cases the real parallel with women's ordination is the Church's hesitancy to change. The question is whether this hesitation is justified. The Church had to overcome its hesitancy in regard to the Gentiles, for this was God's will, revealed in Scripture itself. There is no similar revelation that women are to be ordained and, as we will see, there is much against it. The Church, therefore, should not merely hesitate, but actually reject this innovation.

We must conclude, then, that in denying headship to women either Paul is inconsistent, not having seen the implications of his insight in Galatians 3.28, or the egalitarian interpretation of Galatians 3.28 is not true to Paul's consistent thought. The historic Christian understanding of Scripture is that all its parts are consistent and coherent, and therefore that we must not "so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another" (Article 20 of the Anglican Articles of Religion, Book of Common Prayer, page 871). The historic position on women's ordination is based on this belief and is the only position consistent with it. [5]

In summary, a careful reading of Galatians 3:28 leads to the conclusion that "in Christ, there is no male or female" is consistent with Paul's teaching in other passages that only men are to exercise headship. There is no necessary contradiction between being equal and being under authority.
Indeed, as we have seen, that is the pattern of the life of the Trinity into which we are being invited. While our experience of authority often includes inequality, the idea that equality and submission to authority are inevitably contradictory has to be imported into the text.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fr Whitacre is Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, and a member of the Synod's doctrine and Scripture task force. His previous articles for The Evangelical Catholic were "On Remaining (Or Not) in the Episcopal Church" (May/June 1993), examining the Biblical evidence on whether or not Christians should remain within an errant body, and "Why All the
Fuss?" (April 1990), explaining why the ordination of women is a crucial question for the Church. His list of the books that formed him appeared in "The Books That Form Souls".
------------------------------------------------------------------------