While the political and secular roles of women have been discussed here and elsewhere of late, I thought it might be interesting to bring up the role of women in the church.
I do not purport to be a theologian nor a “teacher” of the Bible, and I am by no means claiming my following opinions to be exhaustive, authoritative, or scholarly… afterall, I’m just writing between breastfeeding, cooking diner, scooping up dog doo-doo in the back yard, and various other domestic activities. With that disclaimer, here we go!
Historically women, though granted important roles, have not been ordained to roles such as pastor, minister, priest(ess), elder, bishop, cardinal, patriarch (matriarch?), or pope. Only recently have women in the Episcopalian church, in protestant denominations and independent churches been given titles such as elder, minister, pastor, and priest. It is, historically speaking, a rather recent phenomenon. However, it is generally accepted that there was once a role for women as deaconesses in the early church, although this role has all but dissapeared in both the Catholic and Orthodox church. So what about that role?
It seems that by the time of the first council of Nicea, there was an established role of deaconess. Many believe the role necessitated a vow of chastity and that their role was limited and not officially ordained:
The principal work of the deaconess was to assist the female candidates for holy baptism… Moreover they sometimes gave to the female catechumens preliminary instruction, but their work was wholly limited to women, and for a deaconess of the Early Church to teach a man or to nurse him in sickness would have been an impossibility. (From a commentary on the council, emphasis mine.)
According to this article, the Roman Catholic church, in 2002, had an International Theological Commission which stated that the role of female deaconesses “should not be viewed as being equivalent to that of ordained male deacons.” The article further stated that “the Vatican in 2001 ordered an end any to Church supported courses that might prepare women for ordination as deacons.” So it seems that while the Catholic church recognizes the historical role of deaconess as “serving as a bridge or connection between women laity and the local church authorities,” it claims deaconesses never participated in the liturgy or served at the altar. There are some groups that have sprung up from the Catholic church which ordain women, but the Catholic Church officially excommunicates these groups and any woman “ordained” as a priest (see article here). However, some are working from within the Catholic church to try and legitimize women priests (ha! good luck with Pope Benedict!).
Well, the PCA took an official stance against ordaining deaconesses, but said that “commissioning” them is okay. Before you jump up and cry “mere semantics!” think about how much importance we place on words in the church. We have spent years and decades, paper and parchment, and councils and synods, in order to define such words as body, essence, nature, sin, salvation, election, transubstantiation, etc. etc. etc. So, I would say that it does mean something when a church body rejects a particular word in favor of another, in this case rejecting women’s ordination but accepting their commisioning.
While we are on the subject, here is an interesting article by Frederica Mathewes-Green. I find it interesting that the Orthodox church, apparently, lets women preach from the “pulpit” and yet bars them from the altar and administering (or even helping to administer) the bread and wine. In my mind this fits perfectly with the distinction of teacher and priest. Here and here are two great articles about priesthood and blood sacrifice and how it relates to the church. And, by the same author, here is another article about women and the priesthood. Also, here is a very thoughtful and scholarly article, from the magazine Touchstone, which gives a review of Saint Junia, considered by many as an apostle of the early church.
So, this is definitely a lot to digest, but I would urge you to read the articles I linked to and then to begin a discussion here. I would love to hear your thoughts and arguments for or against women priests. However, offering some substance and some citations or evidence to support your opinions would be most helpful. As far as I’m concerned, I have absolutely no problem with saying “Madame President,” but I just have an odd gut reaction against taking the sacrament of communion from a woman. It just feels wrong to me. And I also think (minor point–lol) that I have the argument of history behind me! Women can serve many roles in the church, in my opinion, but they ought not to be ordained as ministers of word and sacrament or priests. After all, it just sounds wrong and un-Christian to say: “My priestess recommended this book…” Hmm… sounds like some weird Neo-Pagan or Wiccan thing.
*****************************************************************
EDITED TO ADD: Also, I found this collection of citations from early church fathers and documents about the issue of women in the church. It seems legit and is from a reformed site.
Also, since I have so many links in this article, please let me know if any of them don’t work correctly. Thank you.
- Laura Croft
Laura, you and your gut are certainly entitled to your reaction and feelings.
I’d simply caution you that the practice of diminution of titles for women is largely a phenomenon of the past. Think about it: when’s the last time you referred to your female physician as your “doctoress,” or the woman at your local junior high school who instructs the children in history as a “teacheress”? Just about the only area in which the diminution is regularly used, at least in American English, is in dramatic arts, though many women who act do prefer to be called “actors” rather than “actresses.”
“Priestess” is not what women ordained as priests in Episcopalian/Anglican churches are called. They’re priests. Perhaps part of the problem those who oppose them have, is that they only talk about ordained women, rather than to them.
My pastor is my pastor. She is also my elder, both in age and in office. I give thanks that in my denomination, the “But what will people call them, and won’t it feel strange to take communion from them?” stage is long since past. Nobody insists on a phony title like “pastoress,” or makes more of the body of the person serving communion than they do of the One who gave himself, body and blood, for the sins of the world.
I’m not asking you or anyone to agree with our practice of ordaining women whom God has called to ministries of Word, Sacrament, and Order. I do think, however, that you’re making way too much of your own personal revulsion at the idea of women serving in such ministries, Laura. History has been wrong on many matters, and historically, the church has resembled the world far more than it has the ideal of Jesus Christ, into whose image all Christians–male AND female–are called to be conformed.
“they ought not to be ordained as ministers of word and sacrament or priests”
There is absolutely no sound reason for that, as far as I’m concerned. Most people feel “wrong” about female priests (which would not be called priestesses) because they’ve been drilled since they were little to think women are second. I’ve always found the idea that women should be restricted ludicrous. Why? Because a spiritual woman is even more natural than a woman in authority. Women are, by and large, the most spiritual beings on the planet! To keep them from roles of pastor and priest is the equivalent of keeping men from wrestling or football; it’s nonsense because you’re keeping them from what they’re wired to do.
“ha! good luck with Pope Benedict”
Laugh if you want, but times are changing. The traditional Catholics will keep this hissy fit about female priests going as long as they can, but they can’t excommunicate everyone, and increasing numbers are recognizing women’s vital rights to preach. The idea that women should have secular authority but not spiritual authority has been and always will be nonsensical. I’ll rejoice the day we have a female Pope; with the way the world’s going, that may only take another three hundred years, so I’ll hopefully hear about it in heaven while my descendents rejoice on earth.
And just so you know, I think there have been female priests in the past. It’s a very large and debated question, but a definite possibility.
Hmm…
Obviously I need to rethink my approach to humor or re-asses my writing style and/or skill because my attempts to get a chuckle fell flat and were taken seriously. Oh well, I still get an A for effort, right?
Psalmist, I do know that we don’t use priestess in reference to female clergy. I was trying to add some humor—same with the matriarch blurp. (But I do have to be snarky and add that we do still use, despite efforts to neutralize the lingo, the terms stewardess, waitress, seamstress, hostess, duchess, baroness, and mistress (ha-had to get that in there somehow–lol).
Psalmist said:
I think it is a mistake to: (1) act as if you and your congregation (and others who have come to be thus “enlightened”) are more sophisticated, more civilized, more advanced, more grown-up than those silly folk who are still quagmired in tradition; and (2) to assume that those who oppose women’s ordination do so merely from superficial and subjective feelings of personal discomfort (as if our real objection is how awkward we’ll feel taking communion from a woman). Congratulations, you have successfully taken down a straw man (or should I say straw woman?)!
Of course you are! Every Sunday morning you are asking every visitor, every member of your denomination, and especially every parishoner of your local body to agree with women’s ordination by sitting under the theological instruction of a woman and by taking the sacraments from a woman. Nice try, though.
I do understand what you mean–that you are not trying to impose this view on those outside your denomination/church. I do get it. 
And I appreciate that.
Again, my sense of humor was either not enjoyed or not conveyed. Sorry for that. The fact that I have a personal reaction against taking the body and blood of Christ from a woman has nothing to do with the historical and theological arguments. I also have a negative reaction to child abuse, but I do not say that child abuse is wrong because I have a negative reaction; rather I have a negative reaction, a repulsion (which is natural), to it because it is wrong. So, my aversion to taking communion from a woman is not what makes women’s ordination wrong; instead it is the fact that their ordination is wrong which makes me have an aversion to taking bread and wine from them.
I just don’t agree that the majority of the church over the past two millennia has failed to resemble the “ideal of Jesus Christ”—unless, of course, you are interpreting that ideal through a liberal, twenty-first century view. Then I’d have to say that you need to replace a definite article in your sentence with a pronoun to make it correct, like this: “Historically, the church has resembled the world far more than it has my ideal of Jesus Christ.” But then, because your ideal of Christ is so personal, so subjective, I am actually unable to fully comprehend your individual view of Christ and so I cannot say whether or not you are correct. (Sorry, just having a little fun.) Really though, I believe you could show me many mistakes in church history, but I doubt that you’d be able to demonstrably prove that the church “resembled the world” for the majority of its history. Call me a skeptic, but there ya have it.
And to Jennifer,
I do not laugh at the efforts of those working within the Catholic Church trying to get women ordained. (In fact, I wish that the Reformers would have done that with more success.) I was merely trying, in a humorous way, to convey what I felt to be the futility of their efforts under the current pope (he is far more traditional than John Paul). To the contrary, I applaud them for staying in the church and working within the church and discouraging illegitimate ordination of women.
And Jennifer, you said:
I wish you would give some substantial support for your opinion. All you have said is that because women can be very spiritual beings they ought to be placed in positions of spiritual authority. Children too can be very spiritual. Should they also be ordained? Is one’s perceived spirituality the sole or most important qualification for ordination? So far you have merely opined and not explained or defended your view. Please, do so.
I do not believe that there have been legitimate female priests until modern times (19th and 20th centuries). In the heretical movements (like Gnosticism) there were women performing priestly duties (like serving at the altar); they were spoken out against by the true church (before the church split and before protestantism). And regarding all of the women mentioned in the New Testament and contemporary apocryphal works, it is hard to argue their exact roles and positions in the church. The passages which mention them are difficult to decipher. Please read the article I mentioned above from Touchstone magazine. It is actually a book review, but if you scroll down or skim to the end you’ll find a very persuasive argument for why Junia is not an apostle of the same ilk as the original 12.
Here’s a question I have- when has the church really taken a good look at women’s roles? Has their ever been an ecumenical council to discuss whether or not the church’s historic understanding of Paul is correct? Or perhaps the church has always taken for granted the patriarchal culture in which the Bible was written. Historically, women have been undereducated, thought of as intellectually inferior, and not afforded the same human rights as men- even within the church! Perhaps the church has held these views because its never really had to confront a culture where women are as educated a men, where the myth of female intellectual inferiority has (hopefully) vanished from Western society, and where (Western) women hold the same human rights as men.
Laura said “unless, of course, you are interpreting that ideal through a liberal, twenty-first century view. ”
I don’t think this is the case at all. You know me- I’m not liberal (at least not theologically). You know how hard I fight for historic Christianity and whatnot, but I don’t think that the only way to egalitarianism is by interpreting the ideal (men and women are equal in Christ) through a liberal, twenty-first century view.” There are some pretty conservative textual critics and theologians who are egalitarian (and they are old too!) and I wouldn’t accuse them of this at all.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. The whole reason that CBMW and CBE exist is to cause the church to examine gender roles- something that its never really done before… and it needs to.
When the Bible was written, the word deaconess did not exist. Instead, the word deacon was used for a woman in Romans 16:1.
However, the translators, all being men, could not handle a woman being called a deacon. So instead, the word is translated servant.
The original Greek word is absolutely the same one used for men. But for men it is translated deacon. For Phebe it was translated servant.
Please, DO NOT take my word for it.
When I heard this, I didn’t just believe it. I looked it up myself.
I encourage everyone who reads here to do the same.
Get a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and look it up for yourselves. Please.
Just so you know, translating the Greek word for deacon as deacon and servant are both correct. It’s just that translators should use more consistency. If they want to use servant for women, they should use it for men as well. When they don’t do that, it causes confusion and misrepresents the Word of God.
Laura, thanks for all the links.
I admit that I haven’t followed any of them yet.
I also admit that I’d rather read the Bible first with a good honest concordance and dictionary and get a good foundation. They I’ll feel more comfortable reading the opinions of others on the matter.
Hope to get to your links soon.
“Children too can be very spiritual. Should they also be ordained?”
Please don’t compare children to women. You know as well as I do that that falls flat. It also sounds like the kind of argument the patrios would use.
“So far you have merely opined and not explained or defended your view”
I’ve explained it, all right. But if you want a solid source of my convictions, I also believe that the Bible does not forbid women from being pastors anymore than it forbids them from being presidents, queens, etc.
“I just don’t agree that the majority of the church over the past two millennia has failed to resemble the “ideal of Jesus Christ”
Lordy-that’s the same thing I’ve seen Kamilla from the Bayly Brothers’ Hall of Fans say, over and over. I find it quite easy to believe the early churches didn’t “get it right”. I’m not saying they weren’t holy, but c’mon; we’re talking about a time when it was considered nonsense for women to learn to read! Anyways, I don’t think anyone fails to resemble the ideal of Christ anyway, simply because they misread the meaning of women’s roles. John Piper, Elisabeth Elliot, and Martha Peace, to name a few, don’t believe in ordaining women, but I wouldn’t accuse them of not grasping the ideal of Christ.
Well Laura, I checked that link and found only a few sarcastic jabs at those who believe Junia was justification for women priests towards the end; I didn’t have the energy after that to look further. Honestly, I find the patrios’ efforts amusing: first they say leadership in government doesn’t mean leadership in church, and now they proclaim, with swelled chests, that just because women have leadership roles in church, that doesn’t mean they can become pastors. Sweethearts, that’s exactly what it means: have you forgotten that your main defense against this for the past decade has been that God doesn’t allow women to have authority/leadership over men? That this has been THE sole clanging argument belted out by patrios for years on end? Ding ding, yes He does allow women in authority, so that argument is blown. What will you splutter up next? You’ll say anything, won’t you?
Seriously Laura, I jest and I do find the patrios’ attempts funny, but I’m too tired to really laugh or appreciate your humor. When I looked at that silly Catholic man’s article against Junia, just another attempt in SOME form to limit women in the church, all I could think was, “My God. Satan really does hate us.”
I’m tired, Laura, I’m SO tired and bruised from seeing women tossed around by this that I can’t tell you. I rarely have the energy to take on this argument in all the fire it needs to be taken on, because it upsets me and it’s old, old, old. Satan hated women especially from the beginning, God told Eve there would be this struggle, and I feel as though the centuries of it are weighing on my shoulders right now.
Whew…
I knew this thread would explode! I have a busy day, but I will try and respond when I can!
Mara and Cally, thanks for your encouraging thoughts; you’re awesome and a fan to my dying spark.
Laura, you’re awesome too
Thanks for all your contributions to womanhood.
Just please pray I have the energy to sit throught this. I know that if I ever dread coming to THIS site, of all sites, something’s wrong; that hasn’t happened since the discussion of Calvinism. Lately, I’m just worn by recent attacks of all different sorts on women. I didn’t think I’d be tired by innocent, female-warrior Laura here simply pointing out that she wasn’t sure women should be priests, but I’m already drooping, or foreseeing a droop. Lately, it’s happened that if someone so much as suggests that women maybe can’t be priests, I deflate a little. I just wish women could be left ALONE so they could seek to please God however they were called to do so, just like men!! The feminist movement wouldn’t have happened if women hadn’t been repressed, and I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t be such a push for female priests if there weren’t such a limit to begin with.
Eh, but what am I talking about? I forgot meself: I don’t believe in the Catholic’s ideas of human hierarchy in the church anway, man or woman! How could I have forgotten this? Or the fact that everyone has become consumed with authority and hierarchy? Blast, I’ve already forgotten the valuable lessons learned from “Who is your Covering?”, which makes the very question of priest invalid anyway. Please pray, folks; the lesser Jennifer on this board is becoming unraveled.
Laura-
There are a lot of believers who are confident that scripture clearly indicates that we should not be ordaining men or women as priests.
We believe scripture informs us in the book of Hebrews that the old order of having a human intercessor representing the people before God is long past and that all believers male and female are a kingdom of priests to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Christ alone is our Great High Priest and we have direct access to God’s throne of grace through Him.
As new covenant believer priests we all have a ministry and sacrifices to make in our service to God. Romans 12:1-2.
We believe scripture is devoid of any support for a one man or one woman pulpit, or an ordained class that is to administer the sacraments.
We call no man or woman teacher or father as instructed by Christ.
My wife and I are completely equal believer priests with direct access to God and the authority and privilege to have and share a communion dinner with other believers as we remember and celebrate Christ’s death until He returns at anytime and any place.
Men and women are free to function in the church and exercise their ministry and gifts as led by Christ with humility and love with a view to edify others.
We also believe that any born again believer has the mandate and authority from scripture to baptize one who professes faith in Christ.
You may be interested in some essays by Carl Ketcherside entitled the priesthood of the believer they are tremendous.
Blessings.
Laura, of course it is going to explode.
But I must caution my sisters and brothers to remember the love that Jesus has for us and that we ought to have towards one another.
The two greatest commandments are to love God and to love each other. Period.
Whether women ought to be priests, pastors, elders, deacons is secondary.
Those who don’t believe so must still treat those who do with love and respect and the same goes the other way.
And this is such a hot issue, it will be hard for both sides.
But I have confidence in you all and am looking forward to your very passionate, yet respectful arguments, points, counter points and everything in between. Don’t let me down.
Wow, Laura. You are so brave to tackle this subject with the kind of women that would be attracted to reading this blog! I hope we can continue this discussion with grace.
I agree, I feel weird about the thought of sitting under a woman senior preacher/pastor. However, those feelings are completely unrelated to what I believe. If after careful Biblical study, one believes women should be given any authority at all in the church, then they should be granted the open door to every kind of authority, which is my personal belief.
Isn’t ordination man-made anyway? Can’t we make it whatever we want? I don’t see people getting ordained in Scripture.
One last thought for now. As I have sat in countless pews and church chairs under the teaching of almost exclusively men, I have often longed for a good sermon from a woman… say, once a month. Women use illustrations that appeal to me and connect in such a different way. They use language that touches my heart in a way that men just cannot. Please, not to say that I have not heard wonderful sermons from men. But women do communicate differently and I would love to hear more Sunday morning sermons from women.
Why must women always be adjusting themselves to “get” something from a sermon delivered by a man? Men are totally capable of learning to be challenged by a woman in a spiritual way also.
Church leaders can begin to think outside the box on this one to meet all our spiritual needs. So many options for women in ministry have not been explored because of all the hoopla about ordination and commissioning and what women can and can’t do.
Just read the first article you linked for Mathewes-Green. Great stuff. She is just so practical, down to earth and matter of fact. Sounds like I could hear more sermons by women in the Orthodox Church. Hmmm.
“There are a lot of believers who are confident that scripture clearly indicates that we should not be ordaining men or women as priests.
We believe scripture informs us in the book of Hebrews that the old order of having a human intercessor representing the people before God is long past and that all believers male and female are a kingdom of priests to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ”
That’s exactly what I believe, only for other reasons too. I read a book that presented Scripture contradicting the entire idea that there should be human hierarchy in the church. I believe in human AUTHORITY, but not hierarchy, and I’d totally forgotten that that book blew away, without a doubt, any would-be foundation for the Catholic stepladder of spiritual superiority. Lordy, no wonder I was tired; you’ll always be tired if you vie for authority, no matter how noble the cause. I was so busy thinking of Satan’s curse against women, I forgot about his curse on all mankind: the vie for power!
But hey, I’m an equal-opportunity sinner as much as an equal anything else. So if you still want my answer about priests, I’ll say yes, of course women should be ordained. If men are allowed to be power-hogs in the church, women should be too!
(Now that WAS sarcasm. You guys know that, right?
Response to Cally #5
You know I’m not a church historian or theologian, but as far as I can tell, there have been a number of different discussions, comments, and pronouncements/edicts from both the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and various reformed and protestant denominations regarding women and their role in the church. They were mentioned in the very first council of Nicea as having a role as deaconesses (as mentioned above). Pope John Paul put out a statement that women priests were not allowed. And many protestant and reformed denominations have made similar statements. So you can’t act as if the issue of women’s roles hasn’t had copious amounts of time, study, and thought (and prayer) given to it in nearly all church branches.
What??? What human rights have been denied women in the church?? Whoa there! Please, please explain this one to me. How is it a basic human right to serve as a priest or bishop?
As far as history is concerned, there were many women in active roles within the early church and throughout her long history. Infact, in the Orthodox church, there are parts of their liturgy which were written by women and by nuns, and many many saints venerated in both the East and the West are women. Plus, there is the case of the Empress Irene of Byzantium who actually convened and presided over the Seventh Ecumenical council! If that isn’t granting women power, then I don’t know what is.
Dear Cally, my comment was directed to Psalmist and not to everyone. Okay, the onus is on you… please provide me with some names of conservative theologians who are egalitarian (not just in secular realms but who also advocate female clergy). I would really be interested to see who you’re talking about and where they are coming from.
Again, I think this you are grossly misrepresenting history with that comment. It has been thought out and studied by people far more knowledgeable than you or I. It just so happens that for the majority of history the outcome has not been to your liking, and so you’re willing to dismiss all the scholarship and thought simply because, in your view, “if they had really thought about it, then they would see how equal men and women are.”
Response to Mara #6
Mara, thank you for your comment. I must look into that issue of translation. However, I would caution that merely looking something up in a concordance does not grant one a complete understanding of issues, words, phrases, and meanings, especially when one is not a scholar of the original language (in this case Greek). I would also have to ask which translation you are referring to. If the word deaconess is used in the feminine form in the Greek then perhaps we should look to the church which has not had to rely on a translation but uses and has used the original Greek–the Greek Orthodox Church. (Please don’t take this to mean that I am holding them up as the beacon of truth.) In that church, very early on, you’ll find that women were given the role of deaconess. So, even if there was a translation problem in the West, the Eastern church originally had deaconesses. Why they don’t still I have no idea; that is something I’ll have to look into.
“because, in your view, “if they had really thought about it, then they would see how equal men and women are.”
More like, if they had CARED about how equal men and women are. I don’t find it in least surprising, really; they had generations and generations of sexism ingrained into them, and God predicted this struggle.
“So you can’t act as if the issue of women’s roles hasn’t had copious amounts of time, study, and thought (and prayer) given to it in nearly all church branches”
Laura, you sure give them a heckuva a lot of benefit of the doubt. I don’t; the Catholic church made up its mind a long time ago that women couldn’t be priests. Why should I assume they’d suddenly give sensitive time and reflection to it, now or some years back? Anything with the title “Orthodox” or “Catholic” pretty much speaks for itself, in my mind; they have not been woman-friendly, or open to change and radically new thinking.
“What human rights have been denied women in the church??”
All kinds! Look at the VF! They didn’t make up such traditions themselves; they’re repeating history. Laura, I’m surprised you’re surprised at Cally’s words. I don’t find them in the least alarming or inaccurate.
As for theologians: I’d say Craig Keener, John Bristow, Sarah Sumner, to name a few.
Two years ago I would have had a very different reaction to this piece than I had today.
Two years ago I was a staunch Roman Catholic and wouldn’t let myself really hear anything that wasn’t Roman Catholic thought.
But the issue of women in the ministry is one of many that has made me question the RC Church. Within Roman Catholicism I have a certain understanding of their view of a priest. Because he represents Christ in the Mass and because of the male/female nature of the bride/bridegroom relationship, I can see why a priest in the Catholic Church would need to be male.
But I can’t see why a priest/pastor would need to be male in a Protestant church.
I should mention up front that, growing up in the Episcopal Church, female priests are something that I’ve grown up with. My favorite was Mother Beryl who, recognizing that the term “father” would be inappropriate for her, embraced “mother” instead. She baptized my oldest child.
My parents currently work at and attend services at a Methodist Church in Long Beach CA whose pastor is a woman. And WHAT a woman! This church has so much heart I can hardly explain it. What they lack in numbers they make up for in a generous spirit and servant’s hearts.
I know that there are some excellent arguments for women in the ministry. But I’m not terribly familiar with them. What I do know is that if I were to judge the female ministers I have blessed to know, based on the fruit of their labor, there would be no question as to the rightness of their calling.
I think, in this, tradition is not the best indicator of the rightness of keeping women out of ministry. The early church fathers were heavily influenced by Greek and Roman culture. The philosophies of these cultures were that women were ontologically inferior. In fact, they believed that all babies started out male, but were changed by meddling mothers.
Excellent points, Anne. That was soemthing I’d forgotten: how influenced the early church was by secular, anti-woman forces, including Aristotle’s philosophy.
“In fact, they believed that all babies started out male, but were changed by meddling mothers”
Funny how science always disproves the superstitious patrios. I heard it was just the opposite, that embryos are, or would be, female if they weren’t splashed by the father’s Y chromosome.
In fact, this brings me to a question I’ve been dying to ask medical minds. WWF ladies, you are nurses; is it true that men have nipples because they would have originally been female? (Please don’t laugh at me)
If that’s NOT true, I guess God just added male nipples as a bonus sex stimulator.
Boy, I’m full of thoughts tonight.
I will try and respond to as much as I can, but to Jennifer:
You are so ready and willing to automatically dismiss anything coming from the Catholic or Orthodox church. Why? Do you really understand their views? Please please, before you respond, do me a favor and read the article by Frederica Mathewes-Green. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised to find that you just might agree with a lot of what she has to say. Anyhow, it is at least an enjoyable read since she is a skilled writer. Enjoy!
Laura, I was raised in the Episcopal Church. Born in 1958, and attended very regularly until late in high school, and then I found other places of worship in college, and am no longer Episopalian.
But I’ve seen all these changes you mention, including the Book of Common Prayer, women’s ordination, and the ordination of homosexuals.
I do not approve of the ordination of women as priests, but then again, I agree with Hutch, who either said or implied that neither males nor females should be ordained as priests.
The NT church recognized the offices of “elder/overseer,” and “deacon,” but Peter said we all were a kingdom of priests. So the dissonance between the NT teaching and the RC/Orthodox/Anglican communions stops me right there from calling any man my “priest,” in the sense that he is a priest but I am not.
And if I don’t approve of calling a man that, then I don’t approve of calling a woman that, either.
Just looking at the NT and the pastoral epistles, and the passages about the qualifications of elders/overseers, and deacons, I read nothing about who serves communion.
So I have no problem about women serving communion.
I guess I’m neither fish nor foul, here!
Those are my particular views on the matter. I don’t want to go beyond what the NT says about church life, I don’t think it is wise to use Old Testament terms to describe offices in the New Testament Church, because, in addition to Paul and Peter not talking that way, as Hutch said, it is the New Covenant we are under, not the one at Sinai. It is understandable that there are different terms to this covenant, and there is no longer a special caste priests based on a bloodline, so I don’t think there should be a special class of priests based on an ordination, when the NT says we are all priests.
My two cents.
I could go on at length about women who were co workers with aul and who hosted religious communities, about primary texts from the era of the New Testament that credibly argues for more female leadership (and was not canonized as scripture) and art that shows women presiding at the table, but I’ve not had much luck having discussions with people trained in reformed apologetics in that there is often very little openess to hear new information.
That said, two things:
“priestess” or “deaconess” is not appropriate for two reasons, it is diminuitive and “priestess” harkens back to Ancient Near Eastern non Christian worship practices (paganism, cultic prostitution and the like)
Just because it is uncomfortable, doesn’t mean it is bad! This is a spiritual quagmire, that people associate comfort with goodness. The civil rights movement was uncomfortable, for example. We don’t tend to equate goodness with the people who chose to maintain their own comfort level instead of advocating for the full dignity and humanity of Africian Americans during that era. It sounds like you’ve already gone through that some with the way women are treated in some of your congregations in terms of clothing and family roles.
PS: I would offer a list of biblical scholars and theologians who support this perspective from scripture, but I’m quite sure they wouldn’t pass muster as indicated above in previous posts.
“aul” in the above comment should read “Paul”. Sorry about that
I used to be very against women “in the pulpit.”
After much careful study, I’m convinced that church leaders should be wise and spiritually-gifted lovers of Christ. I am firmly convinced that gender has no bearing on whether or not a leader is a wise and spiritually-gifted lover of Christ.
If women cannot be leaders/shepherds/priests, the question is why? And the answer to the “why” is, to some degree or another, the exact same answer that groups like CMBW and Vision Forum come up with. Something like, “because men are more gifted for leadership than women, because men are made more in God’s image than women are,” etc…
The fact is that there are pictures of women leading congregations painted in the catacombs of the early church. The early church had men AND women recognized as gifted godly leaders. The sign for membership into Christ isn’t circumcision (certainly a male-only sign, one in which barred females in a sense), it’s baptism. The “boy’s only club” is over.
Baptism says that we are ALL, male and female, given full entrance into this Kingdom in which we stand.
The NT says that we are ALL, male or female, priests unto God. There is no men-in-front line in heaven, when the saints are standing before the throne. We are ALL given equal access.
The second to last chapter of Romans is a fascinating look at a church life that is full of women leading. Another commenter above mentioned that Paul calls Phoebe a deacon in the very first verse. Translators changed that to “help” us, because, of course, we all know that a woman can’t be a deacon in the same way that the men were deacons.
They also “helped” us by changing Junia, a female name, into Junius, a male name, because we all know that a woman certainly couldn’t be an apostle. Goodness, no. If you are reading an ESV, all sorts of other gender-related things have been translated in order to “help” you understand that God’s word couldn’t have meant women, too. (Only, the translators aren’t correct, and are working with a bias)…
So many of us raised in the conservative church have been trained to be uncomfortable/sickened at the thought of a woman giving a sermon or shepherding a congregation. What does this say about our inward views about women?
When the idea of a woman shepherding makes us nervous/upset, I think it lays bare some deep underlying beliefs about women that, unfortunately, have been programmed into most of us that have grown up in traditional/conservative settings. “There’s something about women that’s not quite right…she can be trusted in a lot of ways, but NOT spiritually…there’s something incomplete about her, something missing, something untrustworthy…”
The funny thing is that, oh, just about a million male leaders have led their congregations and their people into heresy, deception, and outright destruction. Yet we don’t take that into consideration. I think that nothing will shake our deep underlying belief that a woman in charge would be very dangerous, until we go to the core of why we are believing that. The core comprises the very same message that the anti-woman statements (all through history up to the present) are made of: there’s something about women that is defective. We’re not quite right. We can’t trust ourselves. We’re not safe.
I think that message is a lie. I refuse to believe that Jesus came to perpetuate that message. So I refuse to incorporate that message into my faith.
Warmly,
Molly
Laura: “Mara, thank you for your comment. I must look into that issue of translation. However, I would caution that merely looking something up in a concordance does not grant one a complete understanding of issues, words, phrases, and meanings, especially when one is not a scholar of the original language (in this case Greek).”
Mara: A couple things here.
First of all, it was a Greek scholar who first pointed it out to me. I only verified what was said by looking it up myself in a conservative and fairly universally accepted concordance.
Second, Romans 16:1 is not getting into deep unreachable theology. All Paul is doing is commending Pheobe who he refers to as a deacon.
Third, I’m concerned for you elevation of Greek scholars too far above your own ability to search things out. We are all called to be Bereans, not just the scholars.
I agree we need to consider the knowledge of experts. But ultimately, as the others have said, we are the priesthood and a holy nation as Peter stated.
Experts can have an agenda to veil things that do not please them.
Laura: “I would also have to ask which translation you are referring to.”
Mara: I used the King James version and that is what the Strong’s Concordance is based on.
Laura: “If the word deaconess is used in the feminine form in the Greek then perhaps we should look to the church which has not had to rely on a translation but uses and has used the original Greek–the Greek Orthodox Church. (Please don’t take this to mean that I am holding them up as the beacon of truth.) In that church, very early on, you’ll find that women were given the role of deaconess. So, even if there was a translation problem in the West, the Eastern church originally had deaconesses. Why they don’t still I have no idea; that is something I’ll have to look into.
”
Mara: From my understanding, from the Greek scholar who pointed this out, when the Bible was written, there simply was no word deaconess. only deacon.
Jesus is the foundation and Chief Cornerstone of the true church. And since Peter had direct interaction with Him and Paul was knocked to the ground by His power and taken up to the third heaven, their words are less deluted than those who come later, even if it was only 50 to 100 years later.
I trust Paul’s words more than those who came after. If Paul freely called a woman a deacon and praised her, I think he had a far better handle of what the heart of Jesus is in this matter than the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or any other ancient church leaders.
This is not me dissing the ancient church. This is me getting the foundation in place (Jesus and the apostles) then going from there and not trying to build my building on that which is not foundational.
P.S. The King James at least gets the spelling of Junia right. She is mentioned later in Romans 16 as an outstanding apostle. Other manuscripts have tried to spell her name “Junius” the male version, because the translators could not stand thinking of a woman being an apostle.
All this really means to you and me is that we must keep our hearts open. We must keep this in prayer and honestly ask God, who knows all and wants to reveal His heart to us… we must ask Him what His heart truely is on the matter because parts of His word can be confusing and sounds contradicting. We must seek His heart and His will and not place limitations on ourselves that God does not place on us.
I may be wrong, but perhaps this is what Jennifer is dealing with. She’s so tired of hearing the church tell women, “No, you can’t do this, you can’t do that…” that any no, including real ones from God Himself begin to feel greivious to her.
We need to focus on where God does tell us yes. Then the ‘no’s don’t feel so burdensome.
Maybe God is not into female apostles and Junius is the correct spelling. But does that mean He’s not into female deacons?
Let’s search this out and not just let the traditions of men dictate it to us.
Laura,
I’m sorry if I seem anti-Catholic; I’m really not at all. I love many Catholic traditions and have a lot of favorite Catholic writers. When it comes to the subject of female priests, however, I know most of the Catholics in charge, at least, are as closed as clams to the idea. Maybe I should have specified this; many Catholics are very open to new ideas and change. It’s the most traditional ones, the ones in authority, that shut women off in many ways. I don’t even say that in anger; I’ve just seen it, for years.
Molleth,
You said:
I hardly think those “whys” you gave cover the real issues. Those reasons come from people like the patrios, and frankly they don’t make any sense at all. I think some churches have very good reasons for barring women from the sacraments… it is not merely about teaching and shepherding, it is about the Lord’s Supper primarily. But if one has a low view or merely a memorialist view of communion, then it is no wonder that women are welcomed readily to serve as ministers/pastors.
Mara,
Please, read the article from Touchstone. I think you will find, as the author shows, that the mistranslation of Junia happened recently and it was the early church fathers and the early translations which actually kept the original translation. So, the very people that are thought to be so mired in their patriarchial, mysoginist society are the very ones who kept the original translation as a woman’s name!!
And I am not afraid of my ability to look at and understand scripture, I just know my limitations. I actually did study Greek, long enough to understand what the masculine and feminine endings for words were. I also have a computer program, thanks to my husband, which gives me the full text in Greek. I looked up Romans 16:1 and found that the usage is CLEARLY female. If you don’t agree, please read this interaction on the web about this very issue: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-May/038469.html
The scholar who replies to the query says:
So, please, let’s not go back and forth over this issue. It is and was clearly used as feminine. We don’t always translate a word into the exact same English word every single time. Translators use the context to interpret the best meaning. For instance, the same word for deacon/servant was used in Romans 15:8 referring to Christ, however we translate it as servant:
Should we instead insist on the word deacon? It would then read:
And that just sounds weird to our English ears. Perhaps translators were wrong and should have put deaconess instead in Romans 16:1. However, that is why we have the original Greek and linguistic scholars… to properly understand these things.
I hope this has helped.
I hardly think those “whys” you gave cover the real issues. Those reasons come from people like the patrios, and frankly they don’t make any sense at all. I think some churches have very good reasons for barring women from the sacraments… it is not merely about teaching and shepherding, it is about the Lord’s Supper primarily. But if one has a low view or merely a memorialist view of communion, then it is no wonder that women are welcomed readily to serve as ministers/pastors.
That is your opinion. We all have them (opinions).
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’m really not in the frame of mind to want to debate. I remain firmly convinced that having a uterus does not exclude a Believer from being called of God to lead His people.
That’s exactly what I’m dealing with, Mara; thank you. It makes no Biblical sense for women to be more limited in their spreading of Christ’s message than men.
“I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I’m really not in the frame of mind to want to debate”
I hope this doesn’t mean you won’t post here at all anymore, Molleth. I’d call this more of a discussion than a debate; Laura and I disagree and I was at first horrified at the prospect of her, of all people, thinking women can’t be priests, but I think the discussion’s going wonderfully now. We’re all polite, patient, and non-patrio! Disagreeing and discussing with Laura is SO much easier on one’s person than doing the same with a patrio.
Oh no! That’s not what I meant.
I just meant that Laura’s responses hit on some things that I vehemently disagree with and/or object to, and so, obviously, the urge rose up in me to get more into the conversation (you know me), but the fact is that it’s just not a good idea for me right now to even START to go there. Too much on my plate.
Response to Hutch #11:
First let me address your opening statement:
When I used the word priest in both my title and my post, I was hoping that it would be understood to have a synonymous meaning with pastor/elder/bishop/minister, etc. And I often used those terms together to avoid confusion. However, since you offered evidence against a priesthood, I’ll take the bait.
I suppose you are referring to Matthew 23:9: “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” I think it goes without saying that we cannot interpret every passage of scripture in a strictly literal sense. Otherwise I guess we’d have to poke out our eyes when we lust and cut off our hands when they cause us to sin. The literal interpretation of Matt 23:9 can easily be refuted by other passages where Paul and other apostles refer to the members of their churches as their children. Also, there is this passage: “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15). If you would like further explanation, please see: http://www.catholic.com/library/call_no_man_father.asp And please understand that I do not intend, nor do I believe that I could, change your views on ecclessiology so easily.
I just hope that you can cease using that proof text because it really doesn’t hold any water.
This really threw me for a loop!! So, you believe that as long as I say I’m a Christian (however that is defined) that I can just go around baptizing anyone who confesses faith in Christ? This is no where supported in scripture nor in the practice of the church. Whether priest or minister or pastor, the vast majority of churches have someone of authority, some type of leader, who baptizes new believers. I think you need to support this… it just seems bizarre.
So who serves the communion? Just anyone? Your pastor? Do you have a pastor? If not, then I’d say your church is a fringe element and not compatible with mainstream Christianity because it is not following the basic example established with Christ when he chose his 12 disciples to be leaders. If you do have a pastor, then how is that different than a priest. (I know there are differences, but for the sake of this argument…) Doesn’t a pastor give sermons, visit the sick, lead worship, administer communion, lead Bible studies? Doesn’t a priest do the same? Do you think there ought not be any authority in the church–that we don’t need a shepherd, a pastor, a minister, a priest, a leader for the flock? Or are we all shepherds, leaders, pastors, ministers, priests, etc. It seems to me that the church couldn’t really function if there weren’t some individuals who could lead it and run it. And if we are all equal believer priests, then who is to judge who is wrong and who is right when there are doctrinal disputes? If I say that I believe X and you believe Y and we both have scripture to support our views and X and Y cannot both be true, then who is to be our judge? It seems like, in your view, there wouldn’t be any way to solve those types of problems.
And finally, in reference to your comment to look up articles by Carl Ketcherside… Well, I looked him up and he seems wacky. I found the following:
However, I also did read some summaries of his views (from favorable places) and it seems that he was willing to sacrifice doctrine on the altar of unity/fellowship. If we can’t agree on basic doctrine about the gospel, about the trinity, about baptism, etc., then there isn’t any real unity or fellowship–it is false and superficial. So, I can’t really give any credence to Ketcherside and his “Unity in Diversity.”
But now I do have an answer to the hypothetical problem I mentioned above (the X and Y scenario). The answer, is “it doesn’t matter; don’t we all love each other and love Jesus? Then can’t we all just get along?” Hmm… I think Rodney King would like your church.
Just popping in to say that I took Hutch’s comment to mean “priests” in the Roman Catholic (non-evangelical?) sense, and not as just your average pastor. Is that what you meant Hutch?
Laura, if you really think the thread “exploded,” perhaps you should look at what your original post actually said. You put forth what you’ve since said was an attempt at humor, and appealed to your own discomfort level and at history’s agreement with it as proof that women should not be ordained. Several of us have agreed with that, and said why.
As for my denomination, CHRISTIANS who are called by God to ministries of Word, Sacrament, and Order are educated, examined, and ordained to those ministries. Male and female Christians. We don’t “ask” those who attend our services and become members of the denomination to agree with the practice. It is not an issue. Those who choose to disagree that God has called them, must decide how to handle it, but their disagreement has nothing to do with God’s calling nor with our acceptance of that calling.
Sorry I didn’t dismiss your expression of revulsion as mere hyperbolic humor. Truly, I didn’t see any signs that it was meant in that way.
There is no biblical prohibition against churches ordaining those whom God has called, women or men. You’re just as free to believe God never calls women to be pastors/elders/priests as you ever were. But again, that in no way affects God’s sovereignty to continue calling the women and men God chooses to such ministries.
Oh, one more thing: Tossing out the “L-word” bogeyman is hardly convincing. Liberal is as liberal does. I’d far rather be thought “liberal” than buy into the worldview that would have us be afraid of “liberals.”
One more response to Laura’s response to me:
Laura, you said: “But then, because your ideal of Christ is so personal, so subjective, I am actually unable to fully comprehend your individual view of Christ and so I cannot say whether or not you are correct. (Sorry, just having a little fun.) Really though, I believe you could show me many mistakes in church history, but I doubt that you’d be able to demonstrably prove that the church “resembled the world” for the majority of its history. Call me a skeptic, but there ya have it.
”
Show me ANYTHING I’ve said that could possibly justify your false statement that my “ideal of Christ is . . . personal . . . [or] subjective,” please. Perhaps the reason you can’t comprehend my “individual” view of Christ” because you haven’t bothered (perhaps until now) to ask me about it, and then not until after you’ve already made an unwarranted false judgment about that view.
My “individual” view is actually the church’s historical view of Christ, Laura. I am in full agreement with both the Nicene and the Apostles’ Creeds, and I embrace fully the Christ who is revealed to us in the Scriptures that I disagree with. Now, with that established (unless you want to disagree with me on that), perhaps you’d like to connect some very disparate dots for me and tell me what your mistaken assessment of my “personal” view of Jesus Christ has to do with why women as well as men should not, despite God’s calling, be ordained as pastors/elders/priests in the church.
Oops, in my first response to Laura’s comment to me, I said several of us have agreed with Laura. I should have said “disagreed” with her.
Whoa! I changed a sentence in #39, but my change wasn’t included in the moderated comment!
Please change sentence #2 in the final paragraph by deleting “that I disagree with.” I had started that sentence to say I found nothing that I disagree with in Scripture about who Christ is, but changed it. HOW did that change not get included????
Laura, I would recommend that book “Who is your Covering?” to you. Perhaps then you’d understand where Hutch is coming from. It’s not about abolishing pastors and priests; it’s about abolishing the sort that Catholics and churches practicing severe hierarchy use! Human authority in the church? Yes. Hierarchy? No.
I have found this analysis (quoted below, with link) to be entirely thought-provoking and one with which I thoroughly agree. The Bible is not silent on the issue of women’s ordination. It teaches clearly that men and women have equal standing before God as created beings, as sinners in need of salvation through Christ, and as people called to the same destiny. However, the Bible is equally emphatic in upholding role differentiations between male and female.
I wish I could copy all of the analysis, but it’s far too long. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 are used as references…
“The New Testament teaches that the offices of both apostle and elder/pastor should be filled not just by human beings of either gender but by males. In discussing the qualities for apostles and elders/pastors, the New Testament writers made clear that such an office holder should be a man, not a woman. If they had believed that any person could qualify, irrespective of gender, they would have used the generic term anthropos, a word which refers to human beings, male or female, without regard to gender. Instead, they employed the specific term aner/andros, a word that means a male person in distinction from a woman (see Acts 8:12; 1 Tim 2:12), a person capable of being called a husband (see Matt 1:16; John 4:16; Rom 7:2; Titus 1:6).”
http://www.greatcontroversy.org/books/ss/ss6.html
Psalmist,
Sorry, but we don’t modify posts (or if we do, we are explicit about what we do, and it is just formatting stuff, to make it more readable). This is important, because even if you make a mistake, we wish to maintain the integrity of comments. We don’t want you to think that we meddle in your comments.
So, I’m sorry if you are frustrated, but readers can read your self-correcting post. 
Thank you
-Laura
Sorry Amanda, there is no such distinction by God. I’ve heard that there have been mistranslations deliberately using the masculine term, whereas the original Greek used a gender-neutral term. Since pastors are not truly meant to be higher on some sort of spiritual rung anyway, your point is moot to begin with.
Psalmist,
You wrote:
and then,
Okay, I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. Hopefully this will be better:
You say that the church has not, for the most part of her history, resembled the ideal of Christ. I say that the church has resembled Christ for the majority of her history. We cannot both be correct unless our interpretations of Christ and his “ideal” are different. I can only assume that you said what you said in reference to the issue we are discussing. So, according to your perspective, the majority of the church’s history (of not ordaining women) is not a correct representation of Christ. I would say that you have a lot of hubris to claim that God let the church flounder around in error until recently when enlightened folk like yourself have grasped the true, real message of equality in the church (i.e. ordaining women). (Which, by the way, is the same perspective I have with any person or denomination that claims suddenly he/she/they has/have the correct view of X and the rest of the church for the last 2,000 years has been in error.) Now, if the church has indeed correctly represented Christ through her history (in this case, by not ordaining women), then your view of the ideal of Christ is not historically or biblically accurate. Therefore I would have to say that your view is subjective, individualistic, and in regard to both history and modernity, a minority perspective. You claim,
And yet, if you mean an egalitarian view of women’s ordination to be part of the church’s historical view, then you are wrong.
I am glad that you agree with the creeds; that is more than some. However, that merely puts us on a ground of the lowest common denominator for orthodox Christianity. From there we go separate ways; and the creeds say nothing about women or their ordination.
Dangit- sometimes I hate “bowing out”… LOL
“So, according to your perspective, the majority of the church’s history (of not ordaining women) is not a correct representation of Christ. I would say that you have a lot of hubris to claim that God let the church flounder around in error until recently when enlightened folk like yourself have grasped the true, real message of equality in the church”
I don’t think its the COMPLETE church history Psalmist was speaking of at all (if I may say so, Psalmist). Was the church correct in refraining from ordaining women? No. Does this mean ALL their practices fell short of respresenting Christ? Of course not. No church is perfect, and a female pastor isn’t needed to make a good church. In other words, if those historical churches had nothing but good male leaders, then they were just fine and dandy. The issue isn’t the absence of ordaining women, but of REFUSING to acknowledge the calling of certain women to preach, when and if such women actually show up.
Of course, church history was faulty to begin with because of HOW they treated priests and pastors; that’s a whole other issue by itself, and I’ll readily claim centuries of churches were incorrect about it. However, no one’s claiming they failed to represent Christ completely, or were not blessed by Him for their honest endeavors.
As for being enlightened, I don’t believe Psalmist is so arrogant as to claim that she’s the first who’s ever known better. Firstly, it was a matter of not wanting to acknowledge the truth as much as, if not more than, a matter of simply not knowing better. And there were other things that affected these historical churches: societal pressure, outside influence, not to mention lack of education in women of the time.
And secondly, as I said before, this fault of the church, whether deliberately sexist or not, did not disqualify them from being good and true servants of Christ’s body.
Cally, if you’re here, please fire away!
That was the SECOND time I corrected it, Laura; the first time was BEFORE I submitted it.
Jennifer, your corrections of Laura’s misstatements of my comments and beliefs is on the money, and I thank you for them.
Laura, I disagree with what you have already conceded is a position based at least in part with your own personal negative feelings about women being ordained. I have said why. You have consistently misrepresented what I said and have falsely speculated about my christology based on your own misrepresentations. I’m not going to give you any further fodder.
Cally, I’m with you on this one.
(Concerning the bowing out, that is.)
No problem, Psalmist.
Good Lord, another person’s leaving? I’m ready to as well..
Psalmist,
I hope you can hang on long enough to read this comment.
You said:
??We were talking about the “ideal of Christ” and we were not discussing any aspect of Christology. Instead, we were discussing the message of the gospel–i.e. the ideal of Christ. Maybe we each had a different idea in our heads, but to me when you say “the ideal of Christ” you are not talking about his person, his nature, but rather about his message, in short of how to live out the ideals of what he represents. And to you those ideals mean ordaining women as part of the equality under Christ. Is this a misrepresentation of your view?
You said:
Actually, as I explained in #3:
Can I be any clearer? My belief about women priests being wrong is not based on my feelings (I tried to get that across both in humor and straightforwardly).
I regret that you are leaving the discussion.
To all:
I have much more I wish to write, but for now I need to take a break and do some dishes and laundry!
Jennifer,
Just a quick comment. I took the time to read and post articles related to this topic and was hoping that I would get a good discussion about those articles and issues. We really don’t get anywhere if we just go:
Well I think…
But I think…
Yes, and I think…
It just deteriorates to a matter of personal opinion. Everyone has one and everyone can share it and no one’s is better than anyone else’s. I want to talk about the issues from the articles I posted. If you don’t want to read them and discuss them, then go post somewhere else (I mean another topic/thread, not that I don’t want you on this blog).
PS – You missed the points of the Junia article. A good and careful read would enable us to discuss better.
I’ve never once only said “I think” on any matter, Laura; I’ve given my reasons, and they’re far bigger than personal opinion. This post is about the matter of female priests and your thoughts on this matter, not the thoughts of half a dozen other authors, regardless of whether they’ve influenced you or not; my responses have been to YOUR comments. And no, I’m not going anywhere.
I wasn’t able to follow all the comments. However, the review of Epps book contained no footnotes and was not a scholarly rebuttal of Epp’s thesis, nor did it tackle Belleville’s article which is even better.
There were no facts offered to dispute that Junia was distinguished among the apostles and that is the most literal translation of the Greek.
Of course, the apostles were no doubt a largish group of leaders and should have women among them since they traveled together, both men and women.
The question is not whether this serves as justification for women in the priesthood, but rather why have translators chosen a non-literal understanding for Romans 16:7.
Comments read, Laura. Nothing has changed, so long as you continue to believe categorically that “ordaining women is wrong.” It is not. You have made quite clear your dismissal of any support of the ordination of those women whom God calls to ministries of Word, Sacrament, and Order. Please feel free to continue in your preferred, extrabiblical prohibition with no further challenge of that preference from me.
So… Having caught up with the blog after being away for a bit, I have learned that:
Female priests = abominations.
Female celebrity adulteress = ideal woman.
I am totally over this place.
Don’t even TRY twisting the meaning of this site that way, Blue. If that’s the best you can do to discredit us, it’s pretty pathetic.
I just came across this blog and wanted to add a point on this subject. I skimmed all the comments (so pardon me if I missed something) and the only one I saw to be spot-on was Anne.
This question is not about authority, equality, history, or rights. It is not a question of women being valuable and good leaders and having something essential to add to the conversation. It is about the nuptial meaning of the body. Gender matters. You are a person, body and soul. We must identify ourselves with our bodies if we are to understand Christian anthropology and Christian morality. We must be able to appropriate the value of women into our Catholic culture without insisting on priesthood. Because otherwise we only emasculate women. We lose the dignity proper to our nature. Why do we think we must be ordained (or be men) to serve God, the Church, and bring something of value to the discussion?
And a quick point on receiving communion from women: all lay people, men and women are the same. So if you feel odd about accepting the Eucharist from a female extraordinary minister, I would hope you feel the same about a male extraordinary minister. Ideally, all ministers of the Eucharist are ordained priests or deacons. But we use extraordinary ministers in case of necessity. Among the lay people, there is no distinction between male and female. There are the laity and the ordained, all in one Church.
Same story here as the “Tradition’s View” thread…
I’m busy, but will respond slowly as I have time to read.
“It is not a question of women being valuable and good leaders and having something essential to add to the conversation”
Oh yes it is, Susan. You really expect me to believe that the exhaustive, strenous, and often blasphemous attempt to keep women out of headship positions springs from people who respect women and consider them equal? If they were really considered equal, no one would have a problem with them performing all the same functions as men.
“Why do we think we must be ordained (or be men) to serve God, the Church, and bring something of value to the discussion?”
Nice try; that’s like saying why do black people feel like they should be allowed all the same functions as white people or be white to be valuable. They DON’T. They are human beings in their own right and thus should be allowed the same roles, just as women. I don’t want to be ordained, Susan, especially not in the authority-revering Catholic hierarchal system. What I want to know is that my gender is not being discriminated against by people telling me I could NEVER be ordained just because of my sex. No doubt you think you really do regard women as equal to men, but if I asked you to provide a valid reason as to WHY such equal beings are forbidden authority, for any reason other than the one that macho men shrink from such ideas, you’d never be able to do it.
Lastly, it almost makes me ill that you think women are undignified or emasculated by sharing the news of Christ as a priest. God’s Word is NOT limited to those with penises, nor does it require a masculine vessel to deliver it with authority, leadership and instruction.
One problem is that you believe equality is sameness. Equality is about dignity, it is not about refusing to recognize differences between genders. Language such as “just because of my sex” indicates a willingness to disregard what your gender–your body–means about who you are as a person. And my point is that when you reject this you do not serve your dignity, you abandon it.
An additional problem is that you equate priesthood with authority. It certianly indicates an impoverished understanding of what the priesthood is and only serves to reinforce it all the more. A priest is the servant of the People of God. The priesthood is but a small fraction of the Church. It is the laity who are out there on the front lines that have the duty of being the salt of the world. All the People of God, the laity, priests, even the Pope, are subject to the one authority of Christ. You will never be able to understand this if you insist on what your idea is of the priesthood, rather than see it within the holistic account of the human person as body and soul.
I encourage you to read about the theology of the body and the nuptial meaning of the body. Pope John Paul II did much to advance it in the last 30 years and spoke loudly and clearly about the dignity and importance of women. Even if you still do not agree with the system of hierarchy within the priesthood of the Catholic Church, you would then at least be able to understand why a male-only priesthood is other than “macho men shrink[ing] from such ideas.”
Actually Susan, you’re right about one thing: it’s not about authority, it’s about serving. It’s about not limiting women’s ways of serving God. I am reading this amazing book called “Woman: God’s Plan not Man’s Tradition.” Here is an excerpt I’d like to share, from the author’s introduction:
“Let me say at this point, I am NOT a feminist! Neither am I attempting to champion women’s rights. A truly broken Christian who’s been crucified with Christ has no rights. Rather, I am pressing for the God-given equality of servanthood and submission. I long to see men and women, in the home, in the church, and in all of society, functioning and relating to one another in the way God had in mind from the very beginning.”
I said earlier that I remembered, after getting fired up, that it wasn’t about claiming authority. This awesome book has reminded me all the more of this important fact. The book “Who is your Covering?” Biblically re-defined the meaning of pastors, priests, bishops and elders, ENTIRELY wiping out the traditional definitions of them as intermediaries of spiritual superiority and instead revealing them as caretakers, teachers and counselors; nothing more. In light of this knowledge, it is indeed simply a matter of serving, not reigning, as a priest, for men AND women!! Not a matter of hierarchy; God strictly forbids this in the Bible when it comes to spiritual matters, calling Himself the only King, Father, Rabbi, Leader. Not a matter of dominating authority either; we ALL have authority as Christ’s children and His message-bearers, and once again there’s no evidence that women have a limited status. It’s all a matter of serving, and there is nothing other than pride in the statement or the idea that something is “a male-only role”. If more traditional-minded men would understand that priesthood isn’t about hierarchy to begin with, maybe they wouldn’t be so anal-retentive about having women “over” them.
Re: #56:
Suzanne said:
I suppose the article I linked to did not have footnotes and was not scholarly because it was a book review, not a researched peer-reviewed article.
Do you have a link to Belleville’s article? I don’t subscribe to the journal it was in, but am curious to read it.
The author of the book review, Hunwicke, did not dispute that Junia was distinguished among the apostles. He just talked about how the language was very imprecise. He tried to say that to argue strongly for “Apostle Junia” instead of a Junia who was known amongst the apostles, has little textual support. So I suppose the ambiguity of the text would lead translators to err on the side of diminishing her status rather than falsely elevating it.
The church considered many women as “equal to the apostles,” but they are not known as Apostle Junia, Apostle Mary Magdalene, Apostle Helen, but as St. Junia, St. Mary Magdalene, and St. Helen, because there were twelve apostles (plus Paul) and no women amongst them.
Susan,
Re: #60
You said:
Actually, given that I am not Roman Catholic, I would feel odd accepting the Eucharist from any minister, ordinary or extraordinary.
I’ve never heard of extraordinary ministers used in cases of necessity. Would that be like in a women’s POW camp a woman takes on the role of priest to her fellow women because access to priests is denied them?
Psalmist,
Re: #57
You said:
I want you to know that I really took this allegation seriously. I looked back over both threads and I looked for where I dismissed any support for ordaining women. I found it was quite to the contrary–I actually debated the support and the points people raised instead of dismissing them. Unless I missed something (in which case, please point it out), I think I tried very hard to deal with what evidence people have brought up. Perhaps I was not always as gracious as I could have been, but I do not think I have been dismissive at all.
But your comment did bring up a major point where we disagree which I thought was interesting. You say that God calls these women to be ministers/pastors/priests. This thought is also echoed by Jennifer, who said (#10):
We each come to this with presuppositions, yours being that anyone may be called to minister as pastors/priests. I do not believe that God will call a woman to the ministry of priest. Therefore you view me as opposing God’s calling for these women, and I view you as falsely sanctioning someone’s desire to use their gifts as a divine calling. So the question becomes first, (1) is there a special role of pastor/priest in the church, and (2) how does God call someone to the ministry of priest/pastor?
I think I gave a good argument in support of the existence of roles of authority in the church such as bishop, priest, minister, pastor, etc. in the “Tradition’s view” thread (#35). So now we ought to deal with the second question. How does God call someone to the ministry of priest/pastor?
Possible answers:
A) He/she has pastoral gifts that are recognized by the church body and/or leaders.
B) In addition to (A) he/she must study formally under theologians and/or church leaders.
C) In addition to (A) and (B) he/she must meet the criterion put forth in Scripture for the role of priest/pastor.
My thought would be that it is (C). So then we must look to see what criterion are given in Scripture for the roles of leadership in the church:
So perhaps we can continue the discussion on these passages and what they mean?
This may be a very big mistake on my part, but I think this really needs to be refuted:
“I do not believe that God will call a woman to the ministry of priest.”
Thus, you deny all the evidence to the contrary. You would declare all women called to ordained ministry liars about how God has indeed called them to such ministry, and you would declare liars those who have examined and confirmed their calls. You, in your mind at least, know far better than they–and than God–who God will and will not call to ministries of Word, Sacrament and order. God never, ever calls women to such ministries. Thus says Laura Croft, because she simply can’t/won’t believe otherwise.
Even in those communions in which the official policy is to also disbelieve that God ever calls women to such ministries, GOD is not choosing to be bound by such a disbelief. As any woman called by God to these ministries will tell you, there comes a time when they must choose between the disbelief of their tradition and obedience to God, because like any such call–to men or to women–God doesn’t withdraw it simply because they encounter opposition to it. And those who choose obedience to the tradition over obedience to God, either decide they were mistaken–tradition and its enforcers constitute a powerful coercive force–or they find a communion in which obedience to God is permitted to them.
Your ongoing dismissal of God’s calling of women to ordained ministry is indeed based on hubris: you know better than such women and even better than God, and you by your own non-authority declare their callings invalid. Fortunately, it’s easy to disobey your disbelief-based decarlation, since your thoughts on the matter can and do have no merit to any woman seriously wrestling with a call to ordained ministry.
And something you apparently have completely missed in the proof-texts you’ve highlighted is that contextually, NONE of them is a prohibition of women serving as deacons (hence, Phoebe the deacon), elders (hence, the elder women of the “likewise” that follows), or any other “office” (a rather artificial term but somewhat useful so long as we don’t load it with extrabiblical “requirements”). Look at the context! These fragments describe temperament and character, upholding qualities (including marital fidelity) to which both women and men can and should aspire.
I don’t hope to convince you that you are wrong in your arrogant dismissal of God’s calling of certain women to ordained ministry. Again, you’ve made it crystal clear that you will continue to dismiss such calls. I do think it’s important for those reading this thread, however, to see that faithful Christians have excellent reasons for refuting your disbelief of those calls, and they’re embodied in the obedient, faithful women who have chosen obedience over traditions based on bad exegesis and misogynistic beliefs about women’s limitations.
Psalmist,
I believe God is calling me to be a Mormon. I feel the burning in my bosom!!
What? You say that God wouldn’t call me to a false religion?!
How dare you! You would dismiss the calling God has put in my heart just because you, in your pride and arrogance, can’t see past your own prejudice and narrow-mindedness?
*************
The “obedient, faithful women” you describe are hardly an argument in and of themselves. I can provide you with several conversion stories of Christians who “saw the light” and converted to Islam. Is their testimony an argument for Islam? The existence of pious, charitable, gracious, and faithful women priests/pastors is not an argument for the rightness of female clergy, but merely for the existence (in some churches) of female clergy.
I believe that, as a whole, those protestant groups who wish to bar women from the clergy have a very weak argument. As you stated above, the qualifications listed for the early church leaders were character traits–ones which we can find in women just as readily as in men. I think that the issue is more complicated when a church has a priesthood where the priest is the representative of Christ or of God the Father. In those cases I think it is more difficult to argue for a woman to be a representative of a Bridegroom or of a Father because she is naturally a representative of a bride and of a mother. I hope that you can see this difference. I would like to point you to an article I linked to in the original post for this thread:
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2008/10/priesthood-heavenly-ordinance.html
It is a very basic summary of the difference between the priesthood and other roles in the church. You don’t have to agree that there ought to be a priesthood to acknowledge that where there is a priesthood there are different rules than for elders/pastors/deacons/ministers. You don’t think those rules are biblical. I do. But it is not merely based on scripture, but also how the church has chosen to interpret that scripture, i.e. Tradition. The Tradition you hold to is different than mine (and yes, you do hold to a tradition… we all do, but that is a different issue altogether). We cannot both be right on this issue, one of us (and our Tradition) must therefore be in error. I don’t believe we have the power to convince each other via internet dialogue on this issue. However, I would like to encourage you to not be so very angry and resentful about what you consider to be my dismissal of God’s calling for women priests/pastors. I could easily turn the table and say that you are dismissing scripture, church history, and church tradition, i.e. God’s will on this matter. But I did not use such inflammatory and provocative language against you or your view. What your reaction shows me is that you have a great deal of emotion invested in this matter. I have found that to be the case with a number of people who are firm supporters of female clergy. As you demonstrated above, too often advocates of female clergy associate the support of traditional male clergy with misogyny. You focus on the unfairness of limiting women, of denying them, of dismissing their callings, etc. As if you were combating sexual harassment in the workplace, or fighting for suffrage or equal work for equal pay! Serving at the altar is not a basic human right and it is up to the guidance of the church to decide who serves and in what capacity. Fortunately for you there are many denominations to choose from today. Why you should get so emotionally agitated about particular churches (which are not your church) refusing to ordain women is beyond me.
Laura, while I certainly don’t think you’re arrogant, the one part of your arguments that I consistently object to, the one component that I find inexcusably flawed, is that you consider the arguments against female priests valid based on tradition. Tradition is NOTHING. Traditionally, women are the chattel of their husbands; traditionally, there are only white presidents, and traditionally, women must wear head coverings. Tradition has NO bearing on validity; NONE whatosever. In Genesis, God predicted that woman would desire man and man would rule her; that’s man’s tendency and it has been practiced and proven, over and over in history, from churches to secular society, on ALL kinds of levels. Traditionally, that is man’s practice, and it has no bearing on God’s design and God’s views of women.
Laura, even if you’re now claiming that you’re only talking about God refusing to call Roman Catholic and Orthodox women to the priesthood, I will still refute you.
One of the striking things about clergy callings is the similarity of the genuine ones. God is no respecter of denominations, or persons. And while it’s possible for some misguided individuals to try to choose ordained ministry (and some lax denominations occasionally let such individuals slip through and wreak havoc on the church), genuine callings originate with God. That’s why they’re called “callings.” God chooses, and calls, and equips, and sends. And that goes for RC priests, Episcopal priests, Lutheran priests, and ordained ministers of every Protestant sort. Those willing to discuss their callings, are going to tell you remarkably similar stories, which will invariably include a significant part about their reluctance to believe they WERE called in the first place, as well as a profound sense of inadequacy to the task. And for the women among them, many had added to that burden the social unacceptability they received, some from their own congregations. Some of them found it necessary to leave their communion in order to obey God.
Just where, I wonder, do you get off deciding I’m “angry” or “resentful”? That’s laughable. It’s also false. Perhaps there’s some anger and resentment in this exchange, but it’s not coming from me. I do not appreciate your false accusation.
Far from being “emotionially agitated” on this issue, I’ve merely tried to show any who are willing to actually look to deny God’s sovereignty concerning the calling of women as well as men to ministries of Word, Sacrament, and Order. It appears to me that you have a great deal invested in NOT considering the reality that God has dared to disagree with your preference in this matter. The proof is out there.
That is, unless you’re denying the faith of entire communions of Christians because they do accept the possibility of their daughters as well as their sons being called to ordained ministry. Ordained ministers are not ordained in a vacuum. Most communions subject their candidates for ordination to a very long, close scrutiny in order to confirm the legitimacy of their callings and their fitness to obey them.
For you to further dismiss the possibility and reduce it to the false accusation of making it about “rights” is ludicrous. The only “right” it has to do with is GOD’S right and demonstrated choice to call women as well as men to ordained ministry.
I am not dismissing Scripture; far from it. Scripture in context gives absolutely no indication that God never calls women to ordained ministry. Proof-texted tradition does make such claims, and I have no problem with dismissing that aspect of tradition. Church tradition has been on the wrong side of a number of issues, and denying that God can and does call women to ordained ministry is one of them. To appeal to a tradition that itself has prevented women from obeying such callings, is not logical or in any way a virtue.
I find it amusing that you’ve falsely accused me, along with others who accept that God does call women to ordained ministry, of being “having a great deal of emotion invested in it.” What a patriarchalist line you’re repeating! I’m not the one appealing to my feelings and comfort zone, as you did in the original entry. I’m one who’s studied the Scriptures extensively, in context, intending in fact to “prove” that God couldn’t possibly ever call women to ordained ministry. The Scriptures showed just the opposite, that such prohibitions cannot stand up to the scrutiny of sound contextual study, and that denominational prohibitions have always been merely proof-texted arguments based far more on societal misogyny than Scripture. I went into the study with my emotions in full self-righteous sail. I emerged from it firmly put in my place by the God who says as clearly as can be that our ways are NOT the ways of God; that I who would put God to the test about this (to prove women CAN’T serve as ordained ministers) ought to have been prepared for the possibility that I was wrong, and to choose whether I would follow those who twisted the holy Scriptures for their own preferences, or to instead follow God even when the way offended my sensibilities. This is not about emotions or feelings, this is about GOD’S SOVEREIGN WILL.
If you’ve never wrestled with God over being called to ordained ministry, or been close to someone who has, claiming all women who follow such a calling are in error, is a cheap position to hold. It costs you absolutely nothing, other than whatever it must take to dismiss their faith AND God’s will in such a manner. Personally, I’d rather not know what it takes to do that.
Gamaliel’s advice comes to mind.
I think you’re appealing to awfully desperate, illogical arguments, Laura. Responding to God’s call to serve the church as an ordained minister is NOTHING like the scenarios you’ve invented about converting to Mormonism or Islam. How impoverished a position is, if it requires you to mistake an obedient response by a faithful Christian woman, for renouncing Christianity!
CHRISTIAN women — and men — are called to serve AS CHRISTIANS. Not as Muslims or Mormons. And for a few, that calling from God entails service in ministries of Word, Sacrament, and Order. You obviously know nothing of those women whom God has called to such ministry, if you can so ridiculously dismiss God’s calling of them as similar to someone who allegedly thinks they’re being called to be a Muslim or a Mormon.
h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e
*sigh*
Jennifer,
You are confusing different definitions of tradition. Perhaps we should clarify this before progressing in our discussion?
Tradition as defined by the Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:
Tradition as defined by the Eastern Orthodox church (from: http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=2):
Tradition as defined by the Roman Catholic Church in their catechism (emphasis mine):
As you can see, there is a difference between the RC view and the EO view, the former making a sharp distinction between scripture and tradition and the latter having a more fluid definition incorporating scripture, art, architecture, etc. But both views agree part of tradition is truth being handed down from the apostles onward. Now while you, Jennifer, may not hold to either view, you most certainly have a type of tradition to which you hold. Even those most adamant about “Sola Scriptura” such as the church Cally attends, do hold to a type of tradition. For instance, her church holds to the Three Forms of Unity (three distinct documents summarizing the reformed faith on important matters such as salvation, sanctification, justification, baptism, sacraments, etc.). Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists and others all have their own tradition which tells them how to interpret scripture. We all have a tradition which helps us to interpret scripture. If you don’t like the word tradition, then say paradigm or framework. Either way, it means the same thing.
Now, let’s deal with your quote:
This is not official church teaching from the RC or EO. Purely societal/cultural.
This is a great example for comparison with the church. What you mean here is historically, not traditionally, there have only been white presidents (I’m assuming in America). Why is that? Do we have a law forbidding it? No. Anyone who is of a certain age and born in the US can be president, theoretically. In practice it is different because of the influence of politics, money, demographics, historical factors, and prejudice. Just so, the church has not taken a stance against women, officially labeling them as the property of their husbands/fathers/brothers. But the church has existed inside societies which have labeled women thus. Sadly, the church has not taken a bold enough stand for women’s rights often enough, but the church is not responsible for the prejudices and norms of culture and society. And unfortunately, because of man’s sin and because the church is a human institution with human leaders, some sinful values from society will inevitably leak into church practice in particular cases (i.e. the prejudice of individuals). But will they leak into church belief or theology? Here is where protestants and RC and EO split paths: RC and EO believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the church and therefore will keep her from error; protestants do not. And this is a much more complicated issue which I’d rather not go into since I’m not RC or EO.
This has been part of church tradition when it was also part of society’s tradition. But neither in the RC or the EO church will you find this to be dogma.
Not if you mean mere societal customs or history. But it does when we talk of apostolic tradition. But perhaps you should say: “Tradition has NO bearing on validity for me.”
This perspective on Genesis is hardly accepted by all. And, as I mentioned before, the first three chapters of Genesis are not a good place to look for support for male-female relational constructs. It is written as myth; albeit true, it is still mythological and poetical. Should I go to Proverbs 31 and therefore make an argument that wives ought to spin wool and plant a vineyard to be good wives?
My argument is not merely from tradition but also from scripture. Even though the NT doesn’t say “Thou shalt not ordain a woman,” the requirements for the early church leaders were written to men not women. The twelve apostles Christ hand-picked were all men not women. We don’t find prohibitive language against women, but we can build an argument against female clergy from example and practice.
Maybe I missed it, but no one in these two threads has come forth with specific examples of women in higher leadership than that of deacons. Many quotes of the “one another” passages have been given, but that proves nothing of church leadership. And beyond leadership, I think the traditional prohibition against women is primarily related to the priesthood.
“This is not official church teaching from the RC or EO. Purely societal/cultural”
So what? They’re still tradition. Your argument does nothing for me and honestly baffles me, Laura; tradition in and of itself is not Scriptural means to forbid women leadership.
“This perspective on Genesis is hardly accepted by all”
No indeed, it’s a new one, created by reading the original Biblical language very carefully indeed.
“the requirements for the early church leaders were written to men not women”
Actually, the original language was phrased in a non-specific way, in regards to gender. The only gender-specific command was “husband of one wife” which is very easy for egalitarians to understand because only men of the time ever took more than one spouse. As for the Apostles, the original were also all Jewish; that’s clearly not a requirement for Apostles today either.
“And beyond leadership, I think the traditional prohibition against women is primarily related to the priesthood.”
The function of which was already abused and distorted by the early Catholic church.
“Now while you, Jennifer, may not hold to either view, you most certainly have a type of tradition to which you hold”
I have no tradition at all which I would hold equally to, in the place of, or above God’s Word.
” But will they leak into church belief or theology?”
Obviously, they already have.
“but the church is not responsible for the prejudices and norms of culture and society”
What difference does that make? My point was, such behavior was flawed TRADITION, church-practiced or not.
Personally, I think there’s a place for tradition IF the tradition is based on solid Biblical grounds. It would be a terrible waste of time if, for instance, every new generation had to reformulate the Nicean Creed. (Sadly it does seem that this generation will have to defend that creed from those who argue for the eternal subordination of the Son.)
However the major denominational traditions associated with the ordination of ‘priests’ (presbyters/elders) seem to be only tangentially based on Biblical grounds. A lot of what goes on seems to be related more to the bureaucratic requirements of large human institutions than to the movement of the Spirit.
In my own (Anglican) denomination it seems that bishops may not ordain anyone (man or woman) unless they can provide the ordinand with a living. Imagine if the church at Antioch had been unable to “set apart” Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:1) for their work of evanglising the Gentiles until they had been able to provide each of them with a stipend! Imagine if Titus could not have “appointed/ordained” elders in every city in Crete (Titus 1:5) until he could be sure each of them would have a living! (See this short article on the “theology of ordination”)
The best thing about all this ordination stuff is that it’s a secondary issue. If we all believe the same thing about what Jesus did for us on the cross we need not start doubting each other’s salvation. We can continue to love each other so that all will know that we are His disciples.
For many, many years I wasn’t in the slightest bit interested in women’s ordination for two reasons. First, because I was busy with raising my own children and helping my husband in his work and therefore I had no interest in becoming a parish ‘priest’ and, second, because I believed that the Bible didn’t allow for it. But the great thing about being a convinced Christian who keeps on living is that God keeps drawing one closer and closer to Himself, to know Him better and to love Him more.
As my children began to need me less I began to want to try to do better than too many of the various male preachers I was listening to who were leaving me at best uninspired and, at worst, feeling condemned. Not seeing any opportunity to do that (because of being female) I likened my position to that of a slave. (1 Co 7:21 “Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.”) I contented myself with, “Never mind,” and did what was available to me to do – teaching children – even though I know I’m not particularly gifted at teaching children. Or I don’t think I am. They (9 and 10 year olds) seem to like me well enough but I’d much rather be teaching people who have got beyond concrete thinking.
And then, at the start of this year, I came came across a man who didn’t just have trouble with women teaching from the pulpit of a church building but had trouble with women teaching ANYWHERE where a man might be in the audience. That drove me back to the Bible, particularly to a proper understanding of 1 Timothy 2, which is the passage the aforementioned man cited as the reason for his hesitancy regarding women speaking to men about their faith in Christ.
Having done that research I’m now convinced that God has no problem at all with women being elders of churches. He will call whomever He calls and whoever He calls them will be right for whatever purpose He has in mind. It isn’t up to us to judge God. It’s only up to us to judge whether or not a person, of whatever sex, is truly a follower of Christ and has truly been called to do whatever job they say they feel called to do. In this we have the help of the Spirit. We would be wise not to quench the Spirit with our human rules even if they are supported by centuries of tradition.
It has taken me nearly 30 years of being a Christian to get to this point. Laura, as far as I can tell, is only about that many years old. I say this not to dismiss her experience as a Christian within her particular faith tradition but to encourage her to be open to whatever God might want to teach her about Himself over however long it takes.
Janice, beautiful post. Thank you.
I too have no desire to be a priest or elder; I just don’t want my sisters stifled. And now, after God gloriously leading me through lessons about His nature and His word, I feel closer to Him than ever and more secure in my beliefs.
I know I’m months late on this, so I don’t know if anyone will anyone will see. Just wanted to pass on Frank Turk (from TeamPyro) and I had a extended debate on this issue a few months back:
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2008/07/female-leadership-in-churches-debate.html
The issue was focused mainly on the qualifications for an elder.
Hello All,
I have not read all of the comments on this site yet, though I am looking forward to doing so. I can already tell that I am educationally classed, so please take it easy on me. I will warn you in advance my spelling and grammer are horrible and my wife says I have no sense of humor…
This is not an easy topic to discuss and often gets clouded by emotions. The roles of men and women are established in creation and carry true to the end. While we are no longer subject to the slavery of the Law, it is not to be thrown away either. Paraphrasing) Christ said ‘I did not come to destroy the Law or the prophets, I came to fulfill.’ He also said that ‘Until the Heavens and the earth pass away not one iota nor one title shall be removed from the law until all is fulfilled.’
We can not look back at Genesis 3 and say that male authority only came about because of the curse. To do so also means that women’s roles in child bearing also came about because of the curse. Or the fact that Adam was the tiller of the groun/ steward of the garden, and that his curse did not make him the working provider. It just made it something that he (all men form him on) would suffer through working hard from hardly anything.
God created the Heavens and the earth, but Genesis 2 tells us that nothing grew on the earth because it had not rained and there was no one to till the ground. So God made man and placed him in the garden to tend and care for it. God then gave man the command not to eat. After His creation of man God noted that man being alone was not good. So He made helpers/ compainions (I cannot remember… that is another thing my memory is also horrible. So please check out everything I say!) for the man. God then creates all the animals and when none of the animals met the need the man had God created woman. It is an interesting note that the giving of ones name seems to represent the givers position of authority to the reciever. God gave Adam his name, changed Abram and Jacob’s name, named Jesus, etc. Prior to the fall the man names the woman, “woman” not God.
Then we see in chapter 3 that in her conversation the woman misquotes God’s command not to eat. She fails to name the tree in the middle of the garden, and there were two. She also adds to God’s command ‘we can not eat nor touch it lest we die.’ This is indicative of information that has been passed beyond it’s original reciever. We know that the woman was not created until after the command was given, and I can not bring to mind anyone who misquotes God after directly hearing from Him.
The next thing we read is that the woman looks at the tree and notices that the fruit is pleasing to the eye, good for food, and can make one wise. It is a very small point, but in that instance the woman had a desire to elevate herself beyond the position that God had created her for.
Next she gives the fruit to the man to eat, and he does. This can be very easily over looked. In that moment Eve exercised authority over Adam. This is reflected in God’s questions to them and their curses. God asks of Adam did you eat of the tree that I commanded you not to. Adam is asked first this supports that as the person with the authority the responsibility fell on him ultimately. This is also carried that it is through man that the fallen nature is passed. Next God turns to the woman, once the man fails to take responsibility, and says “What is this that you have done?” If Eve was wrong for eating then God’s question would have been reflective of the question He asked Adam. It is not, God asks her what she had done, because by her actions she broke the natural order that He had created.
In the woman’s curse we are told that she will desire her husband above everything else. This held true until modern times when the unisex and feminist movements “empowered” women. Look at statistics throughout history and women were by and large the more faithful partner in marriage. It also tells us that Eve desired something more than she desired her relationship with her husband and her relationship with God.
Then God starts the curse of man, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife…” Adam was punished because he listened and obeyed his wife. Please do not get me wrong on this. I am married and my wife is far smarter than I am, better at organisation, and in a lot of areas more skilled than I am. She has valuable insights to offer into scripture and life in general. She actually feels very strongly about women not holding positions of authority over/ or teaching men.
Then at the end of chapter 3 time and time again you will read the man:
has become like us
cast the man out
lest he reach forth his hand.
If ‘the man’ was supposed to represent mankind. The Bible would have read something like this:
‘Behold man has become like us… cast them out lest they reach forth their hand.’ But it does not read that way, it reads exclusive and definitive.
A small point can be seen with Noah, God commands him and his sons to lead into the ark followed by his wife and his son’s wives. And they leave in this same order.
Then with Abram and Sarai, her name means ‘my authority’. And it was while she was Abram’s authority that Ishmael was concieved by the idea of Sarai. Again it sohould be noted that Abram failed his duty. And it was not until she became Sarah that Issac was concieved. It is also to be noted that it is Sarah who is noted as an example of a wife and not Sarai.
Paul clearly says that ‘I do not tolerate women to teach nor to exercise authority over men… because it was the man who was created first, and because it was the woman who was decieved.’ These two reasons carry throughout the New Testament.
It should also be noted that Gal. 3:28, the verse used to show equality in Christ. ‘There should no longer be Jew nor Gentile, slave nor freeman, male nor female.” All one has to do is read verse 29 to put this in context. There is no ethnic, social or gender qualifications in terms of salvation and spiritual inheritance. I know Paul wrote of it and I think Christ spoke on it. Slaves were to obey their masters, and their mastersgiven that both were saved) were to treat their slaves as brothers in Christ. Most slaves were that way because they owed their ‘master’ money. Or could not support themselves otherwise. That was not always the case, though. This verse does not negate 1 Tim. 2:11-15.
Nor does it negate that the qualifications of Elder and Deacon is clearly reference male. The husband of one wife. While this can be a call against polygamy, it shoulde be noted that it does not continue on to say, “a wife of one husband”. And the rest of the qualifications, where gender distinction is used, clearly marked male.
Thanks for your time, I will come back later to finish reading the rest of the responses.
God Bless,
Roger
I meant educational outclassed.
I also forgot to continue the throught, the man also named the woman Eve after the fall.