"Gender Justice and Churches of Christ" an article

[Spiritus Naturae]

In my endeavours to research the 'accapella Churches of Christ' I came across this rather enlightening article. I found it quite interesting.

1.The witness of the New Testament to the ministry--service and participation--of women in the New Testament Church is ambiguous. This ambiguity should neither threaten nor discourage us; it is, rather, reassuring. God has called no “plaster saints”; they are all flesh and blood, and they all fail. We are called to patience born of love. We are saved only by grace, and not by our understanding or by our work.

2. Women follow Jesus, and Jesus encourages their ministries to him, for him, and with him. At the end of the Gospels, when the men who followed Jesus have fled, women remain with him. Women are “faithful to the end.” Women are the first witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus, and the first witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. The men who have followed Jesus, and then fled, do not see the resurrection and do not believe the testimony of the women. Even when they finally see the risen Lord, they doubt. The women never doubt.

3. In the Acts of Apostles the women who followed Jesus in the Gospels are among the “120” who “devote themselves to prayer” and, on Pentecost, they are “all” filled with the Holy Spirit. They receive gifts from the Holy Spirit, but the men who have taken charge do not set them apart for any “office” or “work.” The men ignore, overlook, and deny the gifts and ministry of the women for the same reason that they deny baptism to anyone who is not a Jew.

4. Jesus is male and the “apostles” of the Acts are all male; they are also Jews. To assert on the basis of the masculinity of Jesus and the “apostles” that women may not preach or pray or serve the Lord’s table or perform any public function in the worship of the church or serve in any public “office” of the church is to found the church’s doctrine of ministry on genitalia. “Those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh” (Rom 8:5).

5. Paul’s declaration in Galatians 3:28 that “in Christ . . . there is no male and female” alludes specifically to Genesis 1:27 (“male and female created he them”) and is based on Paul’s fundamental teaching that “if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17). This teaching is essential to understanding the authentic Paul, as opposed to his opponents, compromisers, revisers, and rehabilitators. It is present in every authentic letter of Paul. Its absence is a certain sign of pseudepigraphy.

6. The “new creation” in Christ restores the primeval condition of humankind before sin erected barriers between humankind and God and between human beings. The barriers of the old creation--race, class, and sex--are broken down by the reconciling act of God in Jesus Christ. While the new creation shall in the end time, at the return of the Lord Jesus, be fully manifest, it is not merely “eschatological,” but it is intended to be present in the here and now. It begins at baptism, when we “put on Christ.” If it does not happen now, it will never happen at all.

7. Paul in Romans 16 names Phoebe of Cenchrea as a diakonos--a “deacon,” not a “deaconess”--and also a prostates (“guardian”) of himself and others. Prisca and her husband Aquila are “my collaborators” or “fellow workers.” Mary “has worked hard among you.” Junia, with her brother or husband Andronicus, is a relative of Paul, a “fellow prisoner,” and a person “well-known” or “outstanding among the apostles.” Tryphaena and Tryphosa are “workers in the Lord.” In Philippians 4 Euodia and Syntyche “have walked with me in the Gospel, with Clement and the rest of my collaborators.” Paul does not distinguish the “work” of these women from the “work” of men whom he names; clearly he mentions them because of the value of their “work” and the faith their “work” expresses. These names, mentioned only in passing, and only in the letters of Paul, remind us that there are many heroes of faith whose names and biographies we do not know, and many of them are women; we do not know their “works,” because no one wrote them down.

8. In 1 Corinthians 11 women pray and prophesy. They are not forbidden to speak, but they are instructed to cover their heads when they speak to God or speak for God, “because of the angels.” In 1 Corinthians 14 “all” may prophesy, and “all” may learn and be encouraged. Among most Churches of Christ in the twenty-first century women are forbidden to pray and prophesy, but they are permitted to join in the worship assembly and to join the men of the congregation in singing various prayers and prophecies (many of them composed by women), with uncovered heads. Here we may pause to marvel at the convoluted consequences of eisegesis.

9. The entire case against the public ministry of women among Churches of Christ rests on a misunderstanding of two controverted prooftexts, both attributed to Paul. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 plainly contradicts the instruction of Paul in 11:2-16 and 14:31. That is why Paul responds in the way that he does in 14:37: “Did the word of God come out from you? Has it reached you only?” Paul is quoting the letter or statement of a Corinthian faction--just as in 1:11-12, 3:4, 5:1, 6:12, 6:13, 7:1, 8:1, 8:4, 10:23, 11:18, 15:12--and his response is swift, direct, and appropriate. Those who presume to exclude women from speaking in the worship assembly are claiming a monopoly of the word of God from which they seek to assume the prerogatives of God.

In 1 Timothy 2:8-15 we should translate aner as “husband” and gyne as “wife” (as in 1 Corinthians 11:3); read in this way the text is more coherent, but no less troubling. The author is concerned throughout not with teaching and encouraging a “new creation” but with winning the respect of polite society. The vocabulary is unique in the New Testament. The prooftext from Genesis is misapplied in a way that “Paul” elsewhere never uses. Among other things, 1 Timothy 2:15 plainly contradicts Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 7. The author is attempting to rehabilitate Paul and align him with conventional mores.

9.5. The same “Paul” who wrote Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, or Ephesians did not write 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus--although many members of the Churches of Christ would gladly discard all the others if only they could keep the “Pastoral Letters.” It is no accident that the Pastorals are favorite texts for such second-century Christians as we are, for these more than any other canonical documents consign women to the “place” where men have since Adam been determined to keep them.

You can find this article at: http://www.gal328.org/articles/Haymes-Theses.html

Good stuff :thumb:

[Spiritus Naturae]

:huh:

I forgot about this article. I remember it bringing up some very credible points to me about my own attitude towards women in the Church, an attitude I had not really noticed until reading this article and studying the points it brings up. For instance, I seem to be guilty of glossing over 1 Corinthians 11 where women clearly made their presence known in the Churches.

Shame on me...:demure:

[Spiritus Naturae]

I was meditating on this yet again and how Jesus seemed to esteem women far differently than the prevailing culture about Him. The fact that the empty tomb was discovered by women says something in and of itself. They were chosen to proclaim the news to the others. Anna and the daughters of Phillip were New Testament prophetesses but we don't really hear about them and to be fair we don't get a whole lot of in depth info on them in Scripture, almost as if their being as such was nothing spectacular; a given almost. Even in the OT you had Deborah a prophetess and a judge of Israel. Huldah, a prophetess in Israel who spoke judgement against a group of men. Miriam shared leadership with her brothers, Moses and Aaron.

Why is it that we so want to gloss over the contributions that women made to the first century church? I suppose it is so we can make sure they are allowed no opportunity to contribute to the 21 st century church...who knows. Tradition can be a hard taskmaster to abandon. Aren't men and women to submit to one another? It isn't just a 'one sided street' is it?

[George Murphy]

I was meditating on this yet again and how Jesus seemed to esteem women far differently than the prevailing culture about Him. The fact that the empty tomb was discovered by women says something in and of itself. They were chosen to proclaim the news to the others. Anna and the daughters of Phillip were New Testament prophetesses but we don't really hear about them and to be fair we don't get a whole lot of in depth info on them in Scripture, almost as if their being as such was nothing spectacular; a given almost. Even in the OT you had Deborah a prophetess and a judge of Israel. Huldah, a prophetess in Israel who spoke judgement against a group of men. Miriam shared leadership with her brothers, Moses and Aaron.

Why is it that we so want to gloss over the contributions that women made to the first century church? I suppose it is so we can make sure they are allowed no opportunity to contribute to the 21 st century church...who knows. Tradition can be a hard taskmaster to abandon. Aren't men and women to submit to one another? It isn't just a 'one sided street' is it?

There are several answers to the "Why?" question which may overlap - the desire of men to maintain control, their fear of women in authority, naive ideas about scripture, distorted ideas about what it means to represent Christ, & the seven last words of the church, "We have always done it this way." There's also a belief (held also by some women) that women just aren't competent to be pastors - a belief that usually dissipates when then those folks see a woman functioning well in that office.

Fortunately a lot of churches - most Lutherans & Anglicans & others - have
been ordaining women for some time.

Shalom,
George

[dizzle]

I am really uncomfortable with his discarding of the pastoral epistles.

[spl_cadet]

2. The Attitude Of Christ


Jesus Christ did not call any woman to become part of the Twelve. If he acted in this way, it was not in order to conform to the customs of his time, for his attitude towards women was quite different from that of his milieu, and he deliberately and courageously broke with it.


For example, to the great astonishment of his own disciples Jesus converses publicly with the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:27); he takes no notice of the state of legal impurity of the woman who had suffered from haemorrhages (cf. Mt 9:20-22); he allows a sinful woman to approach him in the house of Simon the Pharisee (cf. Lk 7:37ff.); and by pardoning the woman taken in adultery, he means to show that one must not be more severe towards the fault of a woman than towards that of a man (cf. Jn 8:11). He does not hesitate to depart from the Mosaic Law in order to affirm the equality of the rights and duties of men and women with regard to the marriage bond (cf. Mk 10 2-11, Mt 19:3-9).


In his itinerant ministry Jesus was accompanied not only by the Twelve but also by a group of women: "Mary, surnamed the Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, Joanna the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, Susanna, and several others who provided for them out of their own resources" (Lk 8:2-3). Contrary to the Jewish mentality, which did not accord great value to the testimony of women, as Jewish law attests, it was nevertheless women who were the first to have the privilege of seeing the risen Lord, and it was they who were charged by Jesus to take the first paschal message to the Apostles themselves (cf. Mt 28:7-10; Lk 24:9-10; Jn 20:11-18), in order to prepare the latter to become the official witnesses to the Resurrection.


It is true that these facts do not make the matter immediately obvious. This is no surprise, for the questions that the Word of God brings before us go beyond the obvious. In order to reach the ultimate meaning of the mission of Jesus and the ultimate meaning of Scripture, a purely historical exegesis of the texts cannot suffice. But it must be recognized that we have here a number of convergent indications that make all the more remarkable the fact that Jesus did not entrust the apostolic charge[10] to women. Even his Mother, who was so closely associated with the mystery of her Son, and whose incomparable role is emphasized by the Gospels of Luke and John, was not invested with the apostolic ministry. This fact was to lead the Fathers to present her as the example of Christ's will in this domain; as Pope Innocent III repeated later, at the beginning of the thirteenth century, "Although the Blessed Virgin Mary surpassed in dignity and in excellence all the Apostles, nevertheless it was not to her but to them that the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven".[11]

INTER INSIGNIORES
Declaration on the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM)
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

[Spiritus Naturae]

I am really uncomfortable with his discarding of the pastoral epistles.

I dont think he is discarding them, just pointing out the over-emphasizing of them by the tradition in question to the negation of the other portions of Scripture that put women in more of a supporting role of the NT church.

[George Murphy]

If anyone is interested I'll be glad to send my article "The Trajectory of Creation and the Ordination of Women" (The Bride of Christ XXIV.1, 16, 1999). I think it deals adequately with both the RC and Protestant objections. Unfortunately it's not available online. (I'll be away for a few days so responses won't be immediate.)

Shalom,
George

[Jawa Man]

Speaking of women in the church, the Church of Greece I believe has reopened the office of Deaconess. It seems this office was open into the Byzantine Empire days, but for some reason it was shut down.

[tizzidale]

. . . reopened the office of Deaconess. It seems this office was open into the Byzantine Empire days, but for some reason it was shut down.

It wasn't in a good location.

rusty

[Jezz]

There are several answers to the "Why?" question which may overlap - the desire of men to maintain control, their fear of women in authority,
Of course, this is the standard "misogynist" excuse that gets trotted out against the Church in an attempt to explain the practice of only ordaining men to the priesthood and episcopate. The argument is strongly overstated. When one actually looks at the teachings of such great Church leaders as Ss John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc, then one sees that they actually had great compassion and respect for women. Ss John and Gregory, for example, lambasted men who insisted that women remain chaste (and tried to pass laws with harsh penalties for those who weren't) but were themselves rather unrestrained sexually. They stood opposed to their hypocrisy in favour of women.

During the Byzantine period, there were women emporers, too. Some of them are venerated in the Orthodox calendar for their contribution to the cause of Orthodoxy in defence of icons, for example (though their names escape me at the moment).

And of course, the single most venerated human being in the Church (after Christ Himself) is Mary, the Mother of God. How one can call use the "misogynist" and at the same time claim that they elevate Mary too much (as many do) is a mystery to me.

I think rather that those who use the "misogynist" argument are actually engaging in a "misoecclesiast" argument of their own... :smile:

naive ideas about scripture,
This I can agree with. I've not been convinced by many of the "scriptural" arguments against women's ordination. The chief proof texts (from memory, 1 Cor 14 and 2 Timothy or thereabouts) on this issue are weak and possibly talking about something else entirely. We don't know enought about the specific circumstances in Corinth, for example, to know exactly what Paul was getting at in 1 Cor 14.

Which is not to say that I don't think the proscription against women in the priesthood is unscriptural - only that I think that many of the scriptural arguments on offer are simply bogus.

distorted ideas about what it means to represent Christ, &
I think rather the shoe is on the other foot here.

I really don't see what the big deal is. When Mel Gibson was looking for actors to play the role of Christ and the apostles in his movie, I'll bet that he only considered men for the roles. Funnily enough, despite all the flakk that Mel copped for that movie, this was not an issue that attracted attention. Everyone thought it was perfectly natural to choose a man to play the role of Christ. Noone felt the need to try and explain away Mel's actions by alleging misogyny. (Perhaps I should be careful what I say, because otherwise we might find the next "politically correct" passion movie with a woman playing the role of Christ...)

Likewise, all the icons I've ever seen painted of Christ and his apostles depict them as men. Note that this phenomenon is not because the painters were all misogynists or because there was a explicit scriptural injunction against depicting them as women - rather, it was simply because the people that they wished to represent were men.

And yet, when we go to the role of Christ played in Church worship (which is far more important than a movie), people forget all that. This is because they start thinking of the episcopate and priesthood in worldy terms - in terms of power and control, rather than in heavenly terms.

The Church is the mystical/sacramental (take your word of choice) re-presentation of the kingdom of heaven on this earth. The mystery of the kingdom of heaven is made manifest on this Earth through Church worship, which is based on typology. The typological significance manifests the mystical reality. Thus, the bread and wine are a type of the body and blood of Christ. The Church building is the temple (and is called that in Orthodox parlance even today) and is a type of the temple that Solomon built. The bishop is a type of Christ. The priests are types of the apostles. That is why men have always been chosen for these roles. One cannot appoint women to these roles without denying this mystical nature and re-presentation of the Church (which, of course, all denominations who ordain women actually do).

The tendency in the West is to try and figure out correct dogma based on scriptural exegesis, and then try and derive praxes from that. This is a hangover from the days of scholasticism. The problem with this method is that it is wholly dependent on the fallible minds of humans.

The Church has traditionally done theology the other way around (and continues to do so today) - dogma is actually derived from praxis. This is because Church is guided by the Spirit, and as such she sometimes does things for reasons not known to its members, but which are known to the Spirit. Consequently, when the question "why" arises (usually in response to a heretical challenge), the Church reacts, not by declaring that her practice is in error (which is equivalent to claiming that the Spirit has not been guiding her into all truth, as Christ promised), but by discerning why the Spirit has guided them to that practice.

For example, at the time of the Arian controversy, the Church was universally worshipping Christ as God and had been since the time of the apostles - even though they had not yet articulated exactly how God (the Father) and Christ (the Son) could both be God at the same time. It was only when heresy arose that the Church was forced to find words to articulate their belief. And ultimately, it was the universal Church praxis of worshipping Christ as God which forced them to the conclusion that Arius was wrong. It was the subsequent job of the Church to try and figure out why it was acceptable to worship Christ as God, and the Trinitarian dogma of Nicea was formulated. The dogma of the Holy Spirit and the Church was similarly added at Constantinople in response to other heretics, as was the dogma regarding the term "Theotokos" at Ephesus, Irenaeus against all the heresies of his day, etc.

Of course, the above does not apply to theological opinions/practices that have not been universal, the above argument does not apply. But clearly, this is not the case with the ordination of women.

From the Orthodox perspective, the phenomenon of restricting ordination of men to the priesthood falls in this category. The job of the Orthodox Church is to discern why the Spirit has guided them to worship in this way - not to try and claim (based on faulty human reasoning) that the Spirit has misguided them and that they really should be doing something else (which is what Arius claimed). The above explanation that I have given is, I think, the reason that is most widely understood in Orthodox circles (which is similar to the RC position, but not quite the same).

the seven last words of the church, "We have always done it this way."
Indeed, this is the key issue. And you dismiss these words far too easily. Given that it was these words that ultimately gave us the Creed of Nicea that we have instead of some Arian creed (as noted above), I would not be treating it quite so lightly. They are based on Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church into all truth.

After all, "We have always done it this way" means exactly the same thing as "this is a universal practice". How can you confess the words of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed (which includes faith in the catholic Church) while simultaneously denying that universality is a criterion for orthodoxy?

There's also a belief (held also by some women) that women just aren't competent to be pastors - a belief that usually dissipates when then those folks see a woman functioning well in that office.
Well, I agree with you here that this argument against ordaining women to the priesthood is invalid. Women can be (and are) excellent pastors. Indeed, many pious nuns/deaconesses in the history of the Church have dedicated their lives to pastoral work, and have been outstanding examples. Many are reckoned as "equal to the apostles", or, in the case of the Theotokos, even more glorious that the apostles.

But the thing is, the observation that women make excellent pastors does not make a good argument for ordination of women to the priesthood either. Anyone - layperson, deacon, priest or bishop - can be a pastor (indeed, one could argue that every Christian - male or female - is obligated to act as a pastor to the extent of their ability). Thus the distinguishing mark of the priesthood/episcopate is not so much their pastoral role, but their mystical role as the icon of Christ/apostle. And this mystical role can only be properly fulfilled by a man, for the simple reason that Christ and His apostles were men.

Fortunately a lot of churches - most Lutherans & Anglicans & others - have
been ordaining women for some time.
Yes, we must praise these churches for their progressiveness. After all, it was from the very same churches that we found such delightful innovations as "demythologised Jesuses", denial of the bodily resurrection (even amongst ordained clergy), denial of Pauline authorship to Pauline letters in an attempt to understand what the "real Paul" believed (see our opening poster). :smile:

One may of course argue that accepting the ordination of women doesn't imply that one must deny the bodily resurrection, and I would agree. But the problem is not that one leads to the other, but that they both come from a common source - the denial of the validity of the principle described by those last 7 words of the Church... After all, if the Church could, universally, be wrong about topic A, then what prevents someone from arguing that they have been universally wrong about topic B? If the Church was universally wrong in assigning Pauline authorship to 1 & 2 Timothy, then of course they could be universally wrong in only ordaining women to the priesthood...

[furay]

Pearls for an awesome post, Jezz.


During the Byzantine period, there were women emporers, too. Some of them are venerated in the Orthodox calendar for their contribution to the cause of Orthodoxy in defence of icons, for example (though their names escape me at the moment).


Saint Theodora the Empress - truly a pious and virtuous woman. And rightly regarded as such by the Orthodox Church which gives credit where credit is due... for a lack of a better phrase.

[Jezz]

Pearls for an awesome post, Jezz.
Thanks, but you mustn't congratulate me too much. It is too much of a temptation to pride. Give glory to God instead. :smile:

Saint Theodora the Empress - truly a pious and virtuous woman.
Thanks, furay. There was also an empress (Irene) who convened the 7th ecumenical council (which proclaimed the doctrine on icons) some time earlier than St Theodora's reign. I believe that she is reckoned as a saint also.

And rightly regarded as such by the Orthodox Church which gives credit where credit is due... for a lack of a better phrase.
How about this for a better phrase: "the Orthodox Church venerates where veneration is due". :smile:

[spl_cadet]

On the Catholic side, there's tons of female saints. The SS. Therese/Theresa (I believe that there are three of them) are probably the most popular of the saints. Though if JPII is declared one he'll probably more popular for a generation or two.

[Jezz]

Another quick thing that I'd like to mention about this whole "women wanting to be ordained priests" business...

One thing that struck me, when I studied Church history and some of the lives of the great bishops - very few of them actually wanted to be bishops. Most of them took the role only reluctantly - and not because they wanted to, but because the Church asked them to and they obeyed.

In the early days, for example, being a bishop meant that you were the prime target for execution when persecution came along. But even after Christianity became the official religion, life was not easy being an Orthodox bishop, because the Arians then started to persecute them.

St Athanasius, for example - when his bishop (St Alexander) was on his death bed, St Athanasius knew that he would be appointed successor. His initial response was to run away into the desert of Egypt with the monks to try and escape his duty. He was not even in Alexandria when his beloved bishop died. St Alexander left instructions with those who were there that St Athanasius was to succeed him as bishop. After a couple of months Athanasius eventually plucked up the courage to return and assume the bishopric. His story and achievements after that are quite famous, and he is known as "the champion of Orthodoxy".

St Basil the Great, under the tutelage of his sister St Macrina (whom St Basil referred to as "the Teacher") led St Basil into the monastic life. "He had lived as a monk for little more than 6 years when he was ordained a presbyter against his will" (Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, p183, emphasis added).

St Gregory of Nyssa at one stage left the monastary wanted to be a lawyer/rhetorician. It was only after being persuaded by his friend, St Gregory of Nazianzus, that he came back to the monastery and was later ordained. His brother St Basil the Great appointed him to become bishop of Nyssa against his will. He went into hiding (because to be an Orthodox bishop in those days meant having to fight the Arians and the Emporer), but eventually came out of hiding to beome a main leader of the Orthodox cause after St Basil died. Once he was finally convinced that Orthodoxy had solidified its position against the Arians, he again retired to live as a monk.

St Gregory of Nazianzus was ordained a priest at Nazianzus against his will. He fled to St Basil's monastic community. Eventually he returned to Nazianzus as priest, and he preached a sermon: "I have been overcome, and I confess my defeat." He was later appointed bishop by his friend St Basil, again against his will.

St Ambrose of Milan was not even a baptised Christian when he went down to sort out a commotion in the local church over who was to be the next bishop - he was a public servant of the city. It was only after the congregation started to call for him to be bishop that he decided to be baptised and a couple of days later was ordained to the episcopate.

The list could go on and on. But I think the lesson is an important one. These great bishops of the Church did not see the episcopate and the priesthood as something to be sought after - rather, they like Christ, prayed "Father if it be possible let this cup pass from me - yet not my will, but your will be done." This stands in stark contrast to many advocates (though granted, not all) of women's ordination - they see these roles in the Church as "rights" to "positions of power" that are being "denied" to women and granted to men. This reflects a worldly attitude towards these offices. The best bishops were those who did actuall want to accept the bishopric, and indeed were afraid of the office - but rather they solemnly accepted it as a duty of service. This stands in stark contrast to a person who wants to become a bishop or priest so badly that they are willing to risk splitting their church and offending people in order to do it. Where is the fear, the awe, the reverence? This is obviously not a conclusive argument against women's ordination, and I would never use it as such - only God knows these people's hearts, and He alone will judge them. But it is something that has aroused my suspicions on many an occasion. For a long time I sat on the fence on this issue, and during that time this observation always bugged me.

[George Murphy]

As I noted earlier, I'll be glad to email my article on this topic to anyone interested. It develops some of the points I make in the following more fully, gives references, &c.

Of course, this is the standard "misogynist" excuse that gets trotted out against the Church in an attempt to explain the practice of only ordaining men to the priesthood and episcopate. The argument is strongly overstated. When one actually looks at the teachings of such great Church leaders as Ss John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc, then one sees that they actually had great compassion and respect for women. Ss John and Gregory, for example, lambasted men who insisted that women remain chaste (and tried to pass laws with harsh penalties for those who weren't) but were themselves rather unrestrained sexually. They stood opposed to their hypocrisy in favour of women.


During the Byzantine period, there were women emporers, too. Some of them are venerated in the Orthodox calendar for their contribution to the cause of Orthodoxy in defence of icons, for example (though their names escape me at the moment).

And of course, the single most venerated human being in the Church (after Christ Himself) is Mary, the Mother of God. How one can call use the "misogynist" and at the same time claim that they elevate Mary too much (as many do) is a mystery to me.

I think rather that those who use the "misogynist" argument are actually engaging in a "misoecclesiast" argument of their own... :smile:

Since you deal with the other faulty (in my view) arguments I mentioned, you realize that I wasn't saying that all Christians who oppose the ordination of women did so because of desire to retain power or fear of women in authority. (I didn't actually say "misogyny" - literally hatred of women.) But it is certainly one reason that some men are opposed to the idea.

& the issue goes deeper than just emotional or neurotic attitudces toward women. There have been more sophisticated intellectual arguments that women are inferior to men - in particular, the Aristotelian notion that females are defective or incomplete males. E.g., Aquinas says:

"As regards the particular nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex, while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external change.... (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=987825#_edn1)

[i] (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=987825#_ednref1).[i] The Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Encyclopedia Brittanica, Chicago, 1952), Vol.I, p.489 (I, Q 92, Art.2).



This doesn't mean that St. Thomas was a "misogynist" in the popular sense but it would be hard for someone with this theoretical view - which nobody with any sense would hold today - to give fair consideration to the idea that woman could be priests.

& Luther was not a "misogynist." (Paul Hinlicky wrote an article a few years ago titled "Luther Against the Contenpt of Women.") But he said:

"[The papists] argue from [I Corinthians 14:34] that preaching cannot be common to all Christians because women are excluded. My answer to this is that one also does not permit the dumb to preach, or those who are otherwise handicapped or incompetent. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=987825#_edn1)

[i] (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=987825#_ednref1). "The Misuse of the Mass" in [i]Luther's Works, Volume 36 (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1959), p.151.



The very fact that women's ordination isn't his topic here & that he just comments on it en passant is significant. The idea that women were not competent to serve in the pastoral office seemed so obvious to him (& everyone else at the time) that it didn't really need careful consideration.

& that also says something about the issue of tradition, to be noted below. If what tradition holds is just something so "obvious" that it hasn't been thought about critically, & if on critical study it doesn't hold water, then it doesn't count for much.

This I can agree with. I've not been convinced by many of the "scriptural" arguments against women's ordination. The chief proof texts (from memory, 1 Cor 14 and 2 Timothy or thereabouts) on this issue are weak and possibly talking about something else entirely. We don't know enought about the specific circumstances in Corinth, for example, to know exactly what Paul was getting at in 1 Cor 14.

Which is not to say that I don't think the proscription against women in the priesthood is unscriptural - only that I think that many of the scriptural arguments on offer are simply bogus.

One then has to ask what scriptural arguments there are against women's ordination. & we also have to note biblical texts that do speak about equality between women & men (Gal.3:28 in particular) & women exercising spiritual authority over men (Deborah & Huldah e.g.)

I think rather the shoe is on the other foot here.

I really don't see what the big deal is. When Mel Gibson was looking for actors to play the role of Christ and the apostles in his movie, I'll bet that he only considered men for the roles. Funnily enough, despite all the flakk that Mel copped for that movie, this was not an issue that attracted attention. Everyone thought it was perfectly natural to choose a man to play the role of Christ. Noone felt the need to try and explain away Mel's actions by alleging misogyny. (Perhaps I should be careful what I say, because otherwise we might find the next "politically correct" passion movie with a woman playing the role of Christ...)

Likewise, all the icons I've ever seen painted of Christ and his apostles depict them as men. Note that this phenomenon is not because the painters were all misogynists or because there was a explicit scriptural injunction against depicting them as women - rather, it was simply because the people that they wished to represent were men.

And yet, when we go to the role of Christ played in Church worship (which is far more important than a movie), people forget all that. This is because they start thinking of the episcopate and priesthood in worldy terms - in terms of power and control, rather than in heavenly terms.

The Church is the mystical/sacramental (take your word of choice) re-presentation of the kingdom of heaven on this earth. The mystery of the kingdom of heaven is made manifest on this Earth through Church worship, which is based on typology. The typological significance manifests the mystical reality. Thus, the bread and wine are a type of the body and blood of Christ. The Church building is the temple (and is called that in Orthodox parlance even today) and is a type of the temple that Solomon built. The bishop is a type of Christ. The priests are types of the apostles. That is why men have always been chosen for these roles. One cannot appoint women to these roles without denying this mystical nature and re-presentation of the Church (which, of course, all denominations who ordain women actually do).

The tendency in the West is to try and figure out correct dogma based on scriptural exegesis, and then try and derive praxes from that. This is a hangover from the days of scholasticism. The problem with this method is that it is wholly dependent on the fallible minds of humans.

The Church has traditionally done theology the other way around (and continues to do so today) - dogma is actually derived from praxis. This is because Church is guided by the Spirit, and as such she sometimes does things for reasons not known to its members, but which are known to the Spirit. Consequently, when the question "why" arises (usually in response to a heretical challenge), the Church reacts, not by declaring that her practice is in error (which is equivalent to claiming that the Spirit has not been guiding her into all truth, as Christ promised), but by discerning why the Spirit has guided them to that practice.

For example, at the time of the Arian controversy, the Church was universally worshipping Christ as God and had been since the time of the apostles - even though they had not yet articulated exactly how God (the Father) and Christ (the Son) could both be God at the same time. It was only when heresy arose that the Church was forced to find words to articulate their belief. And ultimately, it was the universal Church praxis of worshipping Christ as God which forced them to the conclusion that Arius was wrong. It was the subsequent job of the Church to try and figure out why it was acceptable to worship Christ as God, and the Trinitarian dogma of Nicea was formulated. The dogma of the Holy Spirit and the Church was similarly added at Constantinople in response to other heretics, as was the dogma regarding the term "Theotokos" at Ephesus, Irenaeus against all the heresies of his day, etc.

Lex orandi, lex credendi doesn't mean that everything presented as lex orandi
is free from criticism.

What does it mean to say that the presiding minister at the Eucharist "represents Christ"? There are at least 3 possible sense.

1) Legal representation - as when I "represented" my parents by having their power of attorney. Gender has nothing to do with this.

2) Ontological representation: The representative must be "the same kind of thing" as what is represented. Thus the celebrant of the Eucharist must share the same human nature as Christ - which both men and women do. To quote my article which I mentioned:

"In the Incarnation the Logos assumed all that belongs to proper human nature in order to save all: "What has not been assumed has not been healed." If women were not "represented" in the Incarnation then they could not be saved. One might try to avoid this by arguing that a fundamentally defective character of women makes the relationship asymmetric but I doubt that many Christians want to argue in that way today, at least in public."

3) "Nuptial" representation - a poor term but I can't think of a better at the moment. It's the idea used by some RCs recently that since the Church is the Bride of Christ, the celebrant must be biologically male to represent the Bridegroom. But to quote myself again:

"But if for the sake of argument we accept the priority of this model [that of the Church as the Bride of Christ] in order to pursue the argument, we see immediately that it proves too much. If the presiding minister must be biologically male to respresent Christ, then the congregation must be biologically female to represent the bride of Christ. One cannot insist that there be precise biological correspondence for one without requiring it for the other. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=987825#_edn1) Unless we want to exclude males from the Christian community, we cannot use this argument to exclude females from priestly ordination.
[i] (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=987825#_ednref1). Cf. Morris, [i]The Lady was a Bishop, p.158: "If only men can represent Christ, then only women can represent the Church - the spouse of Christ."



Of course, the above does not apply to theological opinions/practices that have not been universal, the above argument does not apply. But clearly, this is not the case with the ordination of women.

Precisely this point is open to question. There is evidence from catacomb art & other sources to the effect that women in the early church may have presided at the Eucharist & had other roles from which they were later excluded - see, e.g., the book of Morris noted above. Thomas Torrance, a Scottish theologian who has considerable expertise with the Greek Fathers & great respect for the Orthodox Church, began an article in favor of the ordination of women by citing some evidence of this sort.

Obviously such claims need careful study & I certainly wouldn't base an argument for the ordination of women on them alone. But the argument from tradition simply may not be as clearcut as many people think. & of course until one is willing to consider the possibility that tradition hasn't been unanimous on this matter, the claims that I mentioned can't be assessed fairly.

From the Orthodox perspective, the phenomenon of restricting ordination of men to the priesthood falls in this category. The job of the Orthodox Church is to discern why the Spirit has guided them to worship in this way - not to try and claim (based on faulty human reasoning) that the Spirit has misguided them and that they really should be doing something else (which is what Arius claimed). The above explanation that I have given is, I think, the reason that is most widely understood in Orthodox circles (which is similar to the RC position, but not quite the same).


Indeed, this is the key issue. And you dismiss these words far too easily. Given that it was these words that ultimately gave us the Creed of Nicea that we have instead of some Arian creed (as noted above), I would not be treating it quite so lightly. They are based on Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church into all truth.

After all, "We have always done it this way" means exactly the same thing as "this is a universal practice". How can you confess the words of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed (which includes faith in the catholic Church) while simultaneously denying that universality is a criterion for orthodoxy?

Tradition does indeed have great value but tradition alone is a weak argument - & an appeal to tradition alone, apart from any reasoned arguments in support of the tradition, is what's usually meant by a derisive refernce to the phrase "We've always done it this way" (or, conversely, "We've never done it that way). In the 4th century the catholics didn't argue against the Arians just by appealing to tradition. They also gave cogent arguments based on scripture, both particular texts and theological principles derived from scripture (e.g., that the redeemer must be the creator).

& some traditions just don't hold up, & shouldn't. From its earliest days the church allowed Christians to own slaves. It took a long time, & a great deal of controversy, for it to realize that that just wasn't consistent with the kind of life & the kind of community that God calls us to in Christ.

"We've always done it that way" - aka an excessive emphasis on tradition - assumes an essentially static view of creation and of the church. But creation isn't static (as science is continually showing us) and the Church, as the living Body of Christ, isn't either. That's why I titled the article I've referred to "The Ordination of Woman and the Trajectory of Creation."

Well, I agree with you here that this argument against ordaining women to the priesthood is invalid. Women can be (and are) excellent pastors. Indeed, many pious nuns/deaconesses in the history of the Church have dedicated their lives to pastoral work, and have been outstanding examples. Many are reckoned as "equal to the apostles", or, in the case of the Theotokos, even more glorious that the apostles.

But the thing is, the observation that women make excellent pastors does not make a good argument for ordination of women to the priesthood either. Anyone - layperson, deacon, priest or bishop - can be a pastor (indeed, one could argue that every Christian - male or female - is obligated to act as a pastor to the extent of their ability). Thus the distinguishing mark of the priesthood/episcopate is not so much their pastoral role, but their mystical role as the icon of Christ/apostle. And this mystical role can only be properly fulfilled by a man, for the simple reason that Christ and His apostles were men.

& in turn I didn't say that the competence of women is proof that they should be ordained.

But of course I wouldn't agree that "Thus the distinguishing mark of the priesthood/episcopate is not so much their pastoral role, but their mystical role as the icon of Christ/apostle." The NT gives no emphasis to any such "mystical role," especially in celebrating the Eucharist. Of course they are supposed to represent Christ in being pastors (shepherds) & in being ministers of the Word - including the "visible words."

I think that the "simple reason" you note in your last sentence is demolished adequately by what I said above about representation.

Yes, we must praise these churches for their progressiveness. After all, it was from the very same churches that we found such delightful innovations as "demythologised Jesuses", denial of the bodily resurrection (even amongst ordained clergy), denial of Pauline authorship to Pauline letters in an attempt to understand what the "real Paul" believed (see our opening poster). :smile:

As distiguished, of course, from those who gave us caesaropapism and sexual abuse of children by priests - with the same caveats you note.

One may of course argue that accepting the ordination of women doesn't imply that one must deny the bodily resurrection, and I would agree. But the problem is not that one leads to the other, but that they both come from a common source - the denial of the validity of the principle described by those last 7 words of the Church... After all, if the Church could, universally, be wrong about topic A, then what prevents someone from arguing that they have been universally wrong about topic B? If the Church was universally wrong in assigning Pauline authorship to 1 & 2 Timothy, then of course they could be universally wrong in only ordaining women to the priesthood...

& of course denial of ordination to women doesn't imply that one must accept slavery but they both come from a common source ....

Shalom,
George