www.thegospeltruthministry.com

The Biblical Vision Regarding Women's Ordination, part 3
Rev'd Dr Rodney A. Whitacre

Oversight in the Pastoral Epistles

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF St Paul's teaching on headship for ordained ministry in the Church is suggested by several passages in the Pastoral Epistles. (It is sometimes argued that St Paul did not write the Pastorals, and therefore their teaching on headship is not to be accepted. I believe he did write them, but they are canonical, and therefore authoritative, whether or not he did so.)
The Pastorals are especially significant for us because what Paul describes as leadership is essentially what Anglicans understand the ordained ministry to be. Here Paul draws a direct analogy between oversight, or ruling, in the Church and the role of husband and father in the family (I Timothy 3.2-5). The leader of the church is indeed a father to that community. [17]In I Timothy 2.9-15 Paul says, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent" (vv. 11-12). Paul allows women to pray and prophecy in Church, as we have seen, so this command is not an absolute prohibition against women speaking in church. From the context the "silence" he requires clearly refers to teaching, which he immediately goes on to mention. This absolute prohibition is consistent with the rest of Paul's teaching, since he says that the sort of teaching he means is that which is the exercise of authority. [18]A common egalitarian interpretation of this passage argues that the absoluteness of Paul's language here suggests that the command is not general, but rather addresses a particular situation. It obviously addresses a particular situation, but as I have indicated already, it is the absoluteness of the silence that must be recognized as overstatement (obviously women could speak in church), not of the command against women teaching as principal authorities.

Even if the command were not absolute, it would still be an extension of the normal restriction (i.e., of women playing a subordinate role in the leadership of the Church). It would not be the creation of a new concept contradicting his other authoritative teachings.

Adam, Eve, and the Fall

IT IS OFTEN ARGUED that women should be given headship roles because female subordination is a product of the Fall. In Genesis 3.16 Eve is told by God that because she ate of the fruit of the tree, "your husband . . . will be your master," and since (it is argued) this curse has been overturned by Christ, so should the submission of the wife to her husband.

But in I Timothy 2.13-14 Paul grounds this command in Creation as well as the Fall: "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression." Paul emphasizes the fact that Adam was formed first as a sign of his headship. He seems to have assumed that this point would have been readily understood, and accepted, by his readers.

Regarding the Fall, Paul is not saying that women are by nature more easily deceived than men and thus should not teach. If that were Paul's view it would be very strange for him to speak of older women teaching younger women (Titus 2.3); this would be the deceivable teaching the deceivable! Nor is he saying the Fall was entirely Eve's fault. Just the opposite was true, for she was deceived, but Adam was not and the blame is placed on him (cf. Romans 5.12-21: "sin entered the world through one man . . .").

It may be that Eve was deceived when she acted out of keeping with Adam's headship, as is implied in v. 13. In any case, Adam was the one with authority and responsibility for leadership and thus was responsible for discerning the truth. He should have been able to do so since he was not deceived (v. 14). His problem was not discernment, but open-eyed disobedience.

But Eve did have a role, namely, that of wielding a malign influence over Adam. In verse 12 Paul says he allows a woman neither to teach nor actively wield influence over a man. "Actively wield influence over" is the more general term, perhaps added to the verb to teach in order to prepare for the reference to Eve in verse 13. [19] That is, it helps make the connection between Eve's activity, which was not exactly teaching, with the activity of teaching in the Church with which Paul is concerned. [20]In this passage, Paul grounds his instruction in both the Creation and the Fall. While some details in this passage are difficult to understand, the principles behind histeaching in I Timothy 2 are the same as those already seen in his writings.

Office in the Church

THE PATTERN OF ST PAUL'S teaching on men and women we have seen up to this point coheres with his explicit discussion of offices in the Church. I Timothy 3.1-13 and Titus 1.6-9 speak of the overseer (episkopos) also called an elder or "presbyter" (presbyteros) in Titus 1.5 and of the deacon (diakonos)as being the husband of one wife. Paul clearly does not have women in mind for these offices, since the word used in both passages (aner) can only refer to a male.

Some scholars, however, believe that I Timothy 3.11, which comes in the midst of speaking of the men deacons, may well speak of deaconesses or women deacons. This passage seems to refer not to the wives of the deacons, but to a distinct order of ministers within the Church, since the passage flows: Presbyters must be . . . Likewise, deacons must be . . . Likewise women [deacons] must be
(vv. 2,8,11). What is said of these women is parallel to what is said about the deacons in verse 8. [21]Such a role or office would not, however, include headship, since headship is not a part of the deacons role as described in the New Testament, as we see when we compare what is said about the different orders. The responsibility of the overseer or presbyter includes teaching and refutation (I Timothy 3.2; Titus 1.6), which is not said of the deacons. [22] Notice that Paul met with the elders of Ephesus, not the deacons, and tells them that "the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20.17). Here is a clear statement of the responsibility of the oversight of the communities, and it is addressed to presbyters, not deacons.

The role of these presbyters is analogous to their role in their families (I Timothy 3.4-5; Titus 1.6), which is said to be a matter of managing, ruling, and governing (cf. also Hebrews 13.17; I Peter 5.2). This ruling is exercised especially in preaching and teaching: "Let the presbyters who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching" (I Timothy 5.17).

This is not to say that the overseers and presbyters were the only ones who taught, nor perhaps preached, in the early Church. But their teaching and preaching was a primary means of exercising their authority, and therefore presumably carried a weight unlike that of other teachers and preachers. According to our texts, women were not overseers nor presbyters, and this fact coheres with the material we have reviewed about the distinctions in roles between men and women.

Authority in the New Testament

THUS, THE NEW TESTAMENT presents a consistent teaching about authority, even if it allows some variety in applying authority in specific settings. For all of the new respect and responsibility women have in the Christian community, the New Testament gives no indication that this included the exercise of headship within the community, and in fact clearly indicates that it did not.

The passages that teach the subordination of women in family and Church do not contradict the rest of the witness of the New Testament. There is no contradiction between "egalitarian" passages like Galatians 3.28 and Ephesians 5.21 and "hierarchical" passages like I Corinthians 11.2-16 and I Timothy 2.9-15.

The Biblical ideal is richer and deeper and thus both more difficult and more life-giving than simple models of equality or hierarchy. We must hold these texts together to discover this Biblical ideal, and challenge the simplified reading of Scripture that reduces its rich message to pure egalitarianism or hierarchialism. [23]By holding the texts of Scripture together we are forced to define hierarchy,
equality, and mutuality in ways foreign to our culture and to many of the practices and assumptions we have inherited in the Church. We are also forced to embody this foreign ideal in ways that are counter-cultural, difficult, and painful. [24]This requires repentance first. We must repent of clericalism, that is, of seeing ordained ministers as those with the real ministries. We must also repent
of thinking of the authority of headship in terms of domination and power rather than servanthood, love, and respect. We must repent of using subordination to justify misogyny and exploitation. We must repent of valuing power and authority more than humility and holiness.

Holiness, Submission, and Inferiority

IF WE PROPERLY VALUED holiness there would be no danger of thinking that submission means inferiority. The greatest of saints is a woman, the one who said, "Let it be unto me according to your word" (Luke 1.38). She thereby set the example for all of us. The humility of handmaid is not inferior in the least to the authority of headship. Both to command and to obey are divine acts, as we see in the relation of the Father and the Son as revealed in the New Testament.

It was precisely because Jesus was in the form of God that He emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant (an interpretation not expressed in most translations of Philippians 2.6). This declaration that God is both almighty and humble, is both all-powerful and a servant, sets apart the Biblical revelation from all other religions.It is the reason we may serve in whatever role God has given us, whether in headship or submission, without feeling either shame or self-consciousness.
This is already hinted at in the Old Testament. For example, feminists make much of the fact that Eve is said to be a "helper" for man (Genesis 2.18, 20) and this word is used elsewhere of God Himself. They say that this shows that this text does not teach submission. On the contrary, it is a profound insight that God Himself is submissive to us, in the sense that He serves us in a way that honors Himself and us. [25]While repenting of clericalism, however, we must not fall into the opposite error of denying that God has ordained some to be in authority over His People and has given them power, authority, and awesome responsibility (cf. I Thessalonians 5.12). [26] The New Testament shows both Church and family as patriarchal.

The Implications

AS THE CATECHISM and the description of orders in the Prayer Book both make clear, those ordained to the episcopate and the presbyterate in the Episcopal Church are given authority to teach and responsibility for oversight of the Church. [27] Thus they are presbyters in the New Testament sense, and therefore it is not right (if we wish to be obedient to the Biblical revelation) for women to be ordained to these positions. Both offices are positions of headship as the New Testament understands it, and are thus restricted to men. [28]The diaconate, on the other hand, does not include these responsibilities and thus it can be argued that women deacons would be within the pattern described in the Bible. Indeed, as I have noted, the Bible may even refer to women deacons, or deaconesses, in I Timothy 3.11. The rank of deaconess is clearly spoken of in ancient Christian writings, but there it is distinct from that of the deacon.

Thus, it is a matter of dispute whether or not women should be ordained to the diaconate today. Part of the problem is the confusion, at least in the Episcopal Church, over the nature of the diaconate itself, and, more generally, the exercise of authority in the Church.

In regard to the priesthood, two "compromise" positions, both held mostly by Evangelicals who acknowledge the teaching of male headship and authority in the Bible, should be addressed. One (held by some of the most prominent Anglican Evangelicals) says that women can be ordained as presbyters as long as they do not serve as heads of a community, e.g., as rector of a parish or bishop.

Now, clearly the office of bishop is one of headship, but ordination to the presbyterate confers the authority and responsibility of a presbyter, even if one is only a curate or associate. Thus, even in this view of ordination it is very hard to see how women should be ordained as either bishops or presbyters. [29]The second compromise position argues that women (and indeed lay men) ought
to be able to preside over the Eucharist because headship refers to teaching and oversight. But while the priest or bishop has been set aside to exercise a headship of authority and responsibility, whatever form that may take in his particular ministry, it is at the Eucharist that his authority is focused most clearly.

For here is the time for the authoritative preaching and, in the eating and drinking, the authoritative proclamation of the Lord's death until He comes. [30] Here the family is gathered and the father of the family should preside at the meal. All of these are intrinsically acts of authority, and thus limited
to the male presbyter or bishop.[31]

The Deepest Revelation

WE MUST LIVE THE life of the Godhead, among Whom we see equality, hierarchy, and submission (see I Corinthians 11.3; 15.28). We see this in our Lord, who says both, "The Father and I are one" and "The Father is greater than I" (John 10.30; 14.28).

The fact that equality and hierarchy together reflect the life of the Godhead indicates that those incorporated into Christ must express them properly in their own lives. Rightly living out the two is part of what it means to be "in Christ."

Scripture makes it clear that a (if not the) principal way in which we embody and reflect the life of the Trinity is in the relations between male and female. The man and the woman together are the image of God (Genesis 1.27), yet both unity and subordination are already present in the Creation story of the representative man and woman.

Their relationship before the Fall is clearly to be taken as a model for our own, and includes both profound unity and male authority. "The man said, `This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman' " (2.23). When Adam says she is "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" he expresses his unity with her. When he then names her woman he exercises his authority over her. [32]One scholar sees several other examples in this text of what he calls the "paradoxical truths of male-female equality and male headship." First, that the woman is "a helper suitable for him" (Genesis 2.18, 20) means that she is equal in her suitability and under his headship as being his helper.

Second, the woman is said to be from man and for man, not the other way around, nor are both said to be from the ground without any distinction made between them. Third, the man and woman are one flesh, but it is the man who leaves his parents and forms the new household (v. 24); that is, initiating a new household is the responsibility of the head.[33]

Equality and Subordination

BEING MODERN AMERICANS, we easily see and accept the unity and equality of men and women, but the subordination of women to men grates on us. It seems so unfair, so easily misused, such a waste of women's gifts. Surely, we think, God didn't intend such inequality.

Yet the same apostle who said that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3.28) also grounded the hierarchical relation between man and woman (or, husband and wife) in the relation between God and Christ (I Corinthians 11.3). It is not just a pragmatic, culturally determined judgment about how best to organize the family and the Christian community.

The way we order our lives together is to flow from and reflect the very community of the Godhead. If we do not accept hierarchy, Biblically understood, we will have a false view of both God and reality. These are not secondary issues!

Similarly, the concept of headship is fundamental for understanding the Biblical teaching about salvation (see, for example, Romans 5.12-21). The fact that man can be the head, and thus the representative, of the woman is part of the larger pattern of the First Man, Adam, being the head of the whole human race. Because he is the head, when he fell we all fell. Likewise, Jesus is the
Last Adam (I Corinthians 15.45), the Head of the new creation, in whom we die and rise to new life. Because He is head and therefore representative He can be our substitute on the Cross. [34]

The Way Forward

WE MUST BE CERTAIN to learn the nature of this unity and subordination from the revelation of God, not our fallen human nature. For the Church is an otherworldly, eschatological reality. Today, we are in danger of replacing a worldly hierarchialism with a worldly egalitarianism, neither of which is of the Kingdom.

The way forward is for us all to submit (sic!) to the Scriptural teaching and then pray, discuss, study, and listen to God, that we might be given wisdom, courage, and strength to embody a counter-cultural community of men and women here on earth, as we await the coming of our Lord, and life in the New Jerusalem. [35]

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".