www.thegospeltruthministry.com

The Biblical Vision Regarding Women's Ordination, part 4
Rev'd Dr Rodney A. Whitacre

Footnotes
[1] If we were true to our Anglican heritage and looked to the ancient undivided Church for guidance in how to understand and embody the Biblical vision, we would not have nearly the confusion we now have, and would be more likely to be truly counter-cultural. I do not question the good faith of many who welcome the innovation. However, its effect on the life of the Church may be much different than their good faith would suggest. Given the clarity of Scripture, and the confirming clarity of Tradition, the acceptance of this innovation by the Episcopal Church jeopardizes its relation to historic Anglicanism.

For a call to return to this heritage see David W. Bercot, Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture (Tyler, Tex.: Scroll Publishing, 1992), and Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up (Tyler, Tex.: Scroll Publishing, 1989, revised). The ancient teachers do sometimes disagree, and are sometimes obscure and in need of correction in the light of Scripture. But they represent the matrix in which the canon itself was recognized, and there is indeed a Scriptural mind in the ancient Church (see Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View [Belmont, Mass.: Nordland Publishing, 1972], esp. pp. 9-16, 25-36, 73-103). There is need for further prayer and reflection among those who share the perspective found in this paper. There will always be a variety of views concerning how the Biblical principles are to be applied.

However, the ancient Church would direct us wisely, were we willing to receive its guidance.

[2] In fact, E. L. Mascall argued, "from one point of view . . . the Incarnation exalts the female sex above the male." It was "male human nature that the Son of God united to his divine person; it was a female human person who was chosen to be his mother. . . . In no woman has human nature been raised to the dignity which it possesses in Jesus of Nazareth, but to no male human person has there been given a dignity comparable to that which Mary enjoys as the Mother of God."("Women and the Priesthood of the Church" in Bruce and Duffield, ed., Why Not? [Abingdon: Marcham Manor Press, 1972], p. 113.)

[3] See Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priesthood? (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 85-205; Stephen B. Clark, Man and Woman in Christ (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1980), pp. 369-506; Maggie Gallagher, Enemies of Eros (Chicago: Bonus Books, 1989), passim, but especially the studies referenced in her notes. For an examination of feminist scholarship, see Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? (New York:Simon & Schuster, 1994).

[4] "We may see this more clearly in another relationship-that of parent and child," wrote the Anglican Biblical scholar Bp K. E. Kirk. ". . . The child is, throughout childhood and adolescence, dependent upon its parents; if it fails to obey them it introduces chaos into the family life, to its own loss as much as to theirs. But no one will say that the souls of child and parent are not equally precious before God. When this obvious truth is considered, it becomes clear that [Galatians 3.28] is in no sense opposed to that principle of the dependence of wife upon husband which is embodied in [Ephesians 5.22]." (Beauty and Bands [London, 1955], p. 183.) He also notes that the same combination of "essential" equality and "functional" subordination is lived out by Jesus, who was both "Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior as touching His Manhood," in the words of the Athanasian Creed.

[5] In contrast, one of the more conservative supporters of women's ordination, Krister Stendahl, argued that "the general biblical view" is "disfigured and deep-frozen, if the fundamental view [he mean's Paul's belief in hierarchy] and the tendencies that prove to be on their way to burst this fundamental view [Paul's allegedly growing egalitarianism] are allowed to make a harmonious
peace within the frame of the Canon." To which one Biblical scholar remarked that those who saw no contradiction between the two "try to take the texts as they find them, while Stendahl, according to a priori hermeneutical principles, attempts to undo that `harmonious peace,' which undoubtedly is there to the authors, between the first and second half of I Pet. 3.7, and between Gal. 3.28 and I Cor. 14.34f. If Stendahl has not managed to understand how the New Testament writers have been able to avoid feeling that contrast which he himself feels, that is his problem." (Hans C. Cavallin in Bruce and Duffield, Why Not?, p. 87).

[6] Georg Gunter Blum in Bruce and Duffield, Why Not?, p. 64. "To no woman," wrote the Swiss theologian J. J. von Allmen, "does Jesus say, `He who hears you, hears me.' To no woman does he make the promise to ratify in heaven what she has bound or loosed on earth. To no woman does he entrust the ministry of public preaching. To no woman does he give the command to baptize or to preside at the communion of his Body and Blood. To no woman does he commit his flock." (Quoted in Peter Moore, ed., Man, Woman, and Priesthood [London: SPCK, 1978],

p. 71).[7] For a presentation of the evidence that women exercised headship in the early Church, see T. F. Torrance, "The Ministry of Women" in Touchstone 5.4 (Fall 1992), pp. 5-12, effectively rebutted by Patrick Henry Reardon, "Women Priests: History and Theology" 6.1 (Winter 1993), pp. 22-27. In his article, even Torrance, a strong supporter of the ordination of women, concedes that "there is no canonical record of any office of woman presbyters."

Among the passages forbidding women to speak or teach are: Tertullian, Baptism 17, Prescription 41, Veiling of Virgins 9; Didascalia 15; Apostolic Constitutions 3.6; Testamentum Domini 1.40; Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis 14. Those forbidding women to administer the sacraments are Tertullian, loc. cit.; Didascalia 15,16; and Apostolic Constitutions 3.9. In his Panarion 49.2, 79.2-4,
Epiphanias observed that the priestly office was not given to women. Those on the subordination of women include Augustine, Genesi ad Litteram 9,10,11.37; Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 4.7,8; Chrysostom, In I Corinthians 26. For more references, see Kallistos Ware, "Man, Woman, and the Priesthood of Christ" in Moore, ed., Man, Woman, and Priesthood, pp. 68-90, and Hauke, Women in the Priesthood?, pp. 404-444, which includes the Fathers' many attacks on gnostic
sects whose view of men and women is quite similar to some views today.

[8] J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, WBC 38b (Dallas: Word, 1988), p. 889.[9] Several scholars have argued that the metaphorical meaning refers to source or origin (see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], p. 503), but the word is never used this way unambiguously, whereas it is well attested in the sense of ruler, chief, and authority over. Man is indeed the source of woman, as I Corinthians 11.8-9 emphasizes. Besides, "source" seems no more egalitarian than "authority over." The person downstream, so to speak, is still in a dependent and subordinate position. For the meaning of "head," see Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), pp. 140-145;
Wayne Grudem, "Does Kephale Mean Source or Authority Over in Greek Literature?

A Survey of 2,336 Examples," Trinity Journal 6 (1985):38-59; and Wayne Grudem, "The meaning of Kephale" in John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), pp. 425-468.

[10] Wearing a head covering in church does not represent today what it seems to have done in St Paul's day. The passage makes clear, however, that there are principles behind the practice. If we are not going to follow the ancient Church's practice, we should at least find some practice in our setting that would express those principles.

[11] Cf. James B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), pp. 188-191.

[12] Some scholars argue that these verses are not authentic and thus not binding, partly because some ancient manuscripts put them after v. 40, and partly because the prohibition is absolute and thus contradicts what Paul says in 11.5,13.

For the manuscript question, see Fee, pp. 699-700 and the response by D. A. Carson in Piper and Grudem, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, pp. 140-153, esp. pp. 141-145. There is no manuscript support at all for omitting these verses, and they should be taken as canonical and therefore authoritative.

As some scholarly supporters of women's ordination admit (e.g., Duke's Professor Richard Hays in a lecture at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry), these verses are canonical and their opposition to female headship cannot be dodged.

I would add that they are quite in line with Paul's thought, as described in this paper. For the supposed contradiction in Paul's thought, see Fee, p. 706 and the response by Carson. The absoluteness is probably part of Paul's style, which requires us to put together all of his teaching on a subject to understand his thought. Often in Scripture an absolute statement is modified or nuanced
elsewhere, often by the same author. There are a number of examples in St John's writings (e.g., compare John 1.11 with 1.12; I John 3.9 with 1.6,8,10). A further example in Paul would be his statement in Galatians 4.7 ("you are no longer a servant but a son") and his language elsewhere (e.g., Romans 1.1; 6.22). On this theme compare also John 15.15 and 13.13.

[13] See my reflections in "Why All the Fuss?" The Evangelical Catholic 13.7 (April 1990): 1-7.
[14] Cf. Hurley, p. 144. Colossians 3.11 should be compared along with its context (3.12-4.1).
[15] This is not to say there is no difference in the character of the submission in the case of the wives. St. Paul says the wives are to be subject to their husbands, but he says that children and slaves are to obey their parents and masters. This submission reflects the equality and partnership of the husband and wife, in contrast to the simple obedience that characterizes the relations of slave and master, children and parents. As H. C. G. Moule wrote, "The wife `submits herself' as to a guiding friend; the child, and the servant, recognize in parent and master a lawful commander" (Studies in Colossians and Philemon [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977, original 1893], p. 131).

[16] John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, tr. by T. H. L. Parker (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), p. 204; quoted by C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979. Some scholars, such as Cranfield (ibid, pp. 660-663), suggest that "mutual honor" is in fact the meaning of
hypotasso in Ephesians 5.21, so that this text is only making the same command to mutual honor as Romans 12.10 and Philippians 2.3-4. As we have seen, Ephesians 5.21 does include a call to mutual honor, but within the context of submission to authority (cf. 5.22-6.9). The word hypotasso, not used in Romans 12.10 and Philippians 2.3-4, always includes an element of submission, though with different nuances depending on the context.

[17] Paul refers to this relationship in I Corinthians 4.14-21. This text also shows him acting as a father in his admonishing, his role as a model, and his authority.

[18] There is a spectrum of teaching in the New Testament, from the general sense in which all Christians are to exhort and encourage one another (e.g., Colossians 3.17;Hebrews 5.12), to the teaching done by those in authority.

Paul's prohibition of women teaching would include the latter but not the former, since Colossians 3.17 and Hebrews 5.12 are addressed to the whole community.

The kinds of teaching in between these two which women should exercise is debated. For a helpful discussion of the spectrum, and one attempt to apply Biblical principles, see Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective, pp. 242-252.

[19] The meaning of the word authenteo is highly debated. For the interpretation given see Andrew C. Perriman, "What Eve Did, What Women Shouldn't Do: The Meaning of authenteo in 1 Timothy 2:12," Tyndale Bulletin 44.1 (1993): 129-142. Perriman's findings should be supplemented by those of Andreas J. Kostenberger in "Syntactical Parallels to 1 Timothy 2:12 in Extrabiblical Greek Literature," a paper delivered at the Society of Biblical Literature in November, 1992. He found that when two infinitives are in the particular construction found here, they both refer to something positive or both to something negative.

Since to teach is always positive in Paul, authentein is also positive. It therefore means something like exercise authority over, not a negative notion like domineer.

[20] The reference to childbearing, "Salvation for the woman will be in the bearing of children . . ." (v. 15) recalls Genesis 3.16, but now in the sphere of redemption, not curse. This does not mean that barren or celibate women cannot be saved. After all, Paul thought celibacy a preferable state (I
Corinthians 7)! Again, this specific emphasis may reflect aberrations at the time, since some were forbidding marriage (cf. 4.3). It may be a case of Paul's general idea that women should get on with living out their salvation in their appropriate roles (par excellence that of child-bearing-we must be aware of our recent cultural baggage at this point), rather than trying to take on roles reserved for men. Childbearing would be a synecdoche (a part standing for the whole) for the good works of verse 10.

[21] The word gyne can mean woman or wife, but it would be strange for Paul to mention the deacon's wives but not those of the overseers. Cf. Hurley, pp. 229-231. For a short summary of the evidence for women deacons, see H. J. M. Turner, Ordination and Vocation (Worthing: Churchman, 1990), pp. 79-85. Even the conservative Roman Catholic Louis Bouyer has said that "The attempts already made in the Early Church to find a real distinction between the male and
female diaconate were unfruitful"(quoted in Turner, p. 79).

[22] These passages show a lack of precision in the terms overseer (episkopos) and presbyter (presbyteros). While the matter is debated, the historic Anglican position is defensible, namely, that, since the time of the New Testament, three distinct orders of ordained ministers have been characteristic of the Church (BCP, p. 510). This variety in the terms used does not affect the main
point of this paper, that the authority of oversight in the community, however labeled, and however divided between bishops and priests, is to be exercised by men.

[23] The sacrificial nature of authority is expressed very well in the traditional Anglican ordinal: "Have always therefore printed in your remembrance," the bishop tells the ordinand, "how great a treasure is committed to your charge. For they are the sheep of Christ, which he bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you must [sic] serve,
is his Spouse, and his Body. And if it shall happen that the same Church, or any member thereof, do take any hurt or hindrance by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and also the horrible punishment that will ensue" (1928 Book of Common Prayer, p. 540). The rest of the charge calls the ordinand to specific forms of self-sacrifice for the good of his people.

[24] The acceptance of women's ordination is not in itself a rejection of hierarchy or even clericalism, even in its worst forms. Indeed, some advocates seem to want to retain them, but now include women as a matter of equal rights to promotion in the corporation. Such a view compounds error.

[25] Cf. Raymond Ortlund, "Male-Female Equality and Male Headship: Genesis 1-3," in Piper and Grudem, pg. 104.[26] Early Christian texts that spell out this responsibility especially well include St Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration II, "In Defense of His Flight to Pontus," Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, nd), pp. 204-227; St John Chrysostom, Six Books on the Priesthood, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, nd), pp. 33-83; and St Gregory the Great, The Book of the Pastoral Rule, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, nd), pp. 1-72. See also the charge to priests in the classic Anglican Ordinal (1928 BCP, pp. 539-541).

[27] Book of Common Prayer, pp. 855-856 and p. 510. The ordination services flesh out this understanding. The description of the ministry of the deacon (BCP, p. 856) and the ordination service do not include language of oversight.

[28] Some make much of the priest as an icon of Christ, and argue that the priest must be a male because Jesus was a male. Such a view of the priest is the subject of great debate within the Anglican Churches, but even if one rejects this view of the priesthood, there is clearly a symbolic message conveyed by the priest presiding at the Meal that corresponds with his headship role. This
is a point grasped by advocates of women's ordination, who argue that it is important for women and for the community to see a woman functioning as president of the assembly. To put it another way, who sits at the head of the table says much about a family and community and its life together.
[29] BCP, pp. 510, 531. There is also the problem of determining where to draw the line. Some have argued that a woman can serve as a bishop because she will still be under male headship, that of the Presiding Bishop, or further that a woman can serve as Presiding Bishop, because she will still be under the male headship of Christ Himself.This is clearly unfaithful to Paul's teaching.

[30] Cf. I Corinthians 11.26. The word used here for proclaim (katangello) usually refers in the New Testament to preaching. Hence the idea that the Eucharist is a visible word. Both the preaching and the celebration are an exercise of authority in the Church.

[31] A third position, held almost solely by conservative Evangelicals, argues that headship applies in the home but not in the Church. Besides being unworkable, this contradicts I Timothy 2.8-15, in which the words "men" and "women" in the two opening verses cover everyone in the congregation, including single women. (R. T. Beckwith in Duffield and Bruce, Why Not? p. 136.)

[32] Cf. Clark, pp. 15-28. This is important to note, because feminists often claim that female subordination is a result of the Fall, which would make a profound difference in how we read the rest of Scripture. Adam's naming Eve indicates that an orderedrelationship is created before the Fall. Such a relationship does not contradict their both being made in God's image and having
dominion together over creation. But this ordered relationship is "inverted in the fall narrative of Genesis 3. The serpent assumes the role of God in relation to the woman and the woman assumes the role ofthe man and becomes the initiator in that relationship. The judgment of God imposed in 3.14-19 involves a re-establishment of his created order. However, because of sin those relationships will now be painful." (Report of the Sydney Doctrine Commission, 19 July 1985, 3.3-4.)

[33] Ortlund, pp. 100-103.

[34] For this reason it is unwise to do away entirely with the generic use of themasculine in English. If the word "man" can no longer refer to a group of men and women, we distance ourselves not only from Biblical language but also make it harder to grasp essential truths about our humanity and our salvation.

[35] I wish to express my appreciation to the many people who have commented on this paper. Mr David Mills, in particular, edited the manuscript and made many substantive contributions.

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".