by Peter Moore
This article on the ordination of women is offered as
a contribution to the worldwide debate within the Anglican Communion on the
rightness of this practice, given the fact that several provinces have been
ordaining women, and others are considering it. It is complemented by another
article presenting a different approach, written by Dr. Rodney Whitacre. While Trinity has ordained women on its board and
faculty and among its alumni, and while many women have trained for ordination
at Trinity, there remains a quiet, friendly debate among the faculty as to the
biblical basis for the practice of ordaining women as presbyters. While most
faculty are in favor, others are not, but given our
mutual commitment to the work of training men and women for ministry, we do not
fight over this issue and respect each other’s right to hold
contradictory opinions. We offer this article and that by Prof. Whitacre as contributions to the ongoing debate.
IF GOD calls women to the ordained ministry, they
should, of course, be trained, equipped, ordained, and sent forth. A
controversial question lurks behind this assertion, however: does God ever call
women to such a ministry?
To this fundamental question, some answer an
unequivocal no. They say no on one of two grounds. Either they believe that
tradition dictates that only men can be ordained priests in the
The traditionalist view
A great heritage of Christian thinking undergirds the
traditionalist view. It is on this ground that neither the
Traditionalists argue as follows: In the Old
Testament, only men were priests. Jesus chose only men as his Apostles. These
Apostles then became the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament
priesthood. They in turn ordained only men to follow them. It is likely that
these early Christians believed that only a male could truly image Jesus Christ
to the world, and hence a woman priest would have been a contradiction in
terms.
In a traditionalist setting, women are permitted to
exercise a variety of ministries within the Church, and may have leadership
roles. But ordination — with its central role
of presiding as chief celebrant at the Eucharist — is
denied them. Precedent, tradition, and logical consistency imply that the
ordained ministry of the Church should be reserved for those who, because of
gender as well as calling, can walk in the steps of the Apostles.
Scriptural conservative view
“Scriptural conservatives argue their objections to women’s ordination
differently from traditionalists, but they come to much the same conclusion.
Rather than arguing that the New Testament ministry is the heir in some senses
of the Old Testament priesthood, they begin by recognizing a radical discontinuity
between the two: The Old Testament priesthood is primarily a sacerdotal role in
which the priest’s central duty is to carry out the sacrifices to God. The New
Testament ministry is primarily a pastoral and teaching role. The scriptural
conservatives also point out that Jesus called only men, sent out only men, and
seemed to live comfortably within a social structure in which men had a
distinct and divinely-given headship role.”
The ‘radical discontinuity’ idea needs considerable qualification. Marcion thought that there
was such a discontinuity between the Old Testament and much of the New; but
catholic Christianity decided against him. Can there be such a discontinuity
where deep and essential truth is concerned, as opposed to the possibly variable
expressions of obedient response to such truth? Is the need for an atoning
blood-sacrifice, and a priesthood to make the required offering, such an
essential truth? Theologians would I think say, “Yes”. It is
useful to point out that the whole nation in the Old Testament was ‘priestly’, and that that idea is taken up in
the New Testament. That is one truth where there is continuity. There is a discontinuity
of the Lord’s priesthood, and ours, with the FORMS of Old Testament sacrificial
priesthood, which was Levitical, centred in a particular Holy Place, involved
animal sacrifice and other offerings rooted in an agrarian economy, and
excluded all who were ritually unclean, e.g. most women most of the time.
Perhaps the deepest reason why homosex is wrong is
that it does not recognise the nature of chastity, married or single, as deep
and essential truth. ‘Radical discontinuity’ cannot apply to it making it into a legitimate development, no
matter how many aeons may pass. This is why the Church cannot acquiesce in a
situation where we ‘agree to differ’ about it.
“Some scriptural conservatives find the explicit
teachings of
As we have seen, that does not appear to be the point
at issue in either place. Furthermore, to think that it is suggests an
anachronistic preoccupation with our modern discussion. The author has not I
believe come to terms with the centrality of marriage in the New Testament.
“For some, this settles the matter. They argue that,
just as certain trends within the churches threatened to undermine the
leadership of godly men in the first century, so men today are undermined by
aggressive and pushy women who have forgotten that theirs is to be a supportive
role and not a headship one. Male headship is not only here to stay, they
believe, but it is part of the order of creation (Genesis 2:18; 3;16).”
It is accurate to speak of Jesus’ support for an all-male ministry as no more than implicit.
Certainly, however, for the present writer, if these Pauline passages (I think
of I Cor. 14:34-5, even if not Pauline, as canonical for the present purpose!)
are about female encroachment in defiance of the created order, she will
conclude that women’s ordination is wrong.
Assessing the objections
These two perspectives, the traditionalist one and the
scriptural conservative one, seem to settle the matter for a great number of
sincere Christians. They believe with all their hearts that they are following
our Lord and seeking to be faithful to his Word and will.
“I have great respect for those who hold these
positions, even though I disagree with them as I will go on to show. I also
believe that there will always be those who object to the ordination of women,
and their position will continue to be respected among faithful, orthodox
Christians. Furthermore, I deplore any effort to force these believers to change
their views. Recent actions by two General Conventions (1997, 2000) indicate
that respect for their position has drastically eroded within the Episcopal
Church. Gradual reception of women’s ordination is not to be permitted any longer. Instead some form of
coercion appears to be the order of the day.”
Yes. The argument involved convictions at least as
strong (to put it mildly!) as those in the ‘meat
offered to idols’ row for which Paul prescribed in
Romans. But nobody applied that prescription, or anything like it. A friend of
mine once said to me that he had never met a “weaker
brethren”; but plainly there were those who believed
that the move offended deep principle, and they were shabbily dealt with. There
was no restraint exercised, no real theological conversation or respectful
effort to persuade those offended by the offence. There was no sense that when
something is an adiaphoron to one side
only, there is a duty to persuade those to whom it is a diaphoron.
Conviction was dismissed as though it were crude prejudice.
I am inspired by the fact that evidently the row about
the meat-market in
Despite the strong recommendation of the Lambeth
Conference of 1998, which — significantly — was backed by several women bishops, that no member Province of the
Anglican Communion force women clergy on dioceses that are opposed to them, the
Episcopal Church seems determined to act otherwise. This is an ill-advised, and
deeply regrettable strategy.
“That aside, I believe that the ordination of women is not only
compatible with Scripture, but actually called for, once the true development
of scriptural thought is grasped.”
I imagine therefore that the aim is to make a case
scripturally, in accordance with which we may move to be of one heart and one
mind in this matter. For if something is “actually called for” by Scripture, it is wrong that any should remain unpersuaded in the long term.
“Of course, “development” is the key to my argument. I must begin by saying right here that
an attempt to ground the ordination of women on specific biblical texts cannot
be supported. Instead, I would argue that it is consistent with the development
of the roles and ministries of women found in Scripture.
Development is a key concept in Scripture. Even the
most conservative of biblical interpreters accepts the idea of progressive
revelation as scriptural. By the same token, I would argue that the whole idea
of an ordained ministry as we know it, while it is present in embryonic form in
the New Testament, is an extension of biblical patterns rather than something
firmly fixed in Scripture itself.”
Yes. However, if ‘male headship’ is indeed a ‘deep’
truth rooted in Creation, and ordination means exercising ‘headship’, we may not ordain women as
opposed to men.
Early patterns of ministry
In New Testament days, the Apostles appointed leaders
in various locations to ensure the proper oversight of young believers. Some of
these were deacons, people who took care of the practical needs of the
believing community, while others were presbyters or bishops (episcopoi) people given general oversight of local
congregations.
There is no evidence that the deacons we find in the
New Testament were what we now call “transitional deacons,” that is, people who are ordained for a short testing period, and then
advanced to the priesthood. Nor is there any clear evidence that the bishops
were meant to be “pastors to the pastors,” people given authority over the ministries in an entire region. As
far as we can tell bishops were “primus inter pares,” that is, first among equals. They were
local pastors who were honored for their seniority,
wisdom, and leadership gifts. They may have looked after other congregations in
their areas, but we cannot be absolutely sure of this from New Testament
evidence alone.
As for a ministry order called “priests,” we hear absolutely nothing about
it in the New Testament. The only uses of the word for priest refer either to
Jesus Christ himself, whose offering of himself is “hapax,”
(a Greek word meaning once for all, and therefore unrepeatable (Hebrews
9:25-28; 10:12), or to the whole people of God, who are now a “nation of priests” offering sacrifices of
praise and thanksgiving. (1 Peter 2:9)
Most Anglicans are quick to point out that the New
Testament word “presbyter,”
(elder) entered the English language in the altered form of “priest.” Hence our Anglican understanding of
priesthood does not hinge so much on the Old Testament idea of a priest who
offers sacrifices to the Lord, as on the New Testament idea of an elder who
presides at the Lord’s Table in place of Christ. The Anglican priest stands before the
people as a representative of the Lord and before God as a representative of
the people. But this sort of thinking, however sincerely held, is a development
from patterns of ministry that are implicit in Scripture. It cannot be said to
be derived from a direct statement in the scriptural text itself. What we do
know about New Testament presbyters is that they were primarily leaders, people
gifted by the Holy Spirit with charisms of teaching,
preaching, guiding congregations, and the maintenance of good order and sound
faith.
Development is part of virtually every doctrine of the
ministry, just as it is part of our gradual understanding of God as Scripture
unfolds. What developments do we observe in the place and role of women
throughout the course of salvation history?
Women in the Old Testament
From Genesis we learn that women were created
alongside of man — as one commentator pointed out, “not out of man’s head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be ruled by him, but
from his side, to stand alongside of him as a partner and helper in the task of
exercising dominion over creation.” Women bore the
image of God equally with men (Genesis 1:27) and are seen as “very good” (Genesis 1:31).
“From the Fall onward (Genesis 3), we see a new
relationship between men and women emerge. Deception enters in; both man and
woman participate in that deception, which is coupled with a yearning for
dominance and leads to shame and fear. In the end, both man and woman are
banished by the Lord from the Garden, and the relationship between them is
altered. “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he
shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). ”
The Hebrew in that context is not particularly easy;
but there is some consensus that ‘You will feel desire for’ is not quite right, and the word means rather ‘You will strive to dominate over’. This may mean that the ‘headship’ of the male is disputed, or quite
as naturally that there is to be competition where before there was harmony.
Throughout the Old Testament, we see this distortion
in male-female relations played out. Men gain the upper hand in the Old
Testament, but women are not portrayed as mere victims. In return for personal
advantage, they are often complicit in a culture that relegates them to second
class status. Rebekah’s duplicitous role in securing the
blessing for Jacob is followed by Rachel’s deception of her father Laban, then Zipporah’s strange
rejection of the leadership of her husband, Moses. They are followed by a
succession of legendary femmes fatales such as Jezebel, Delilah,
and Athaliah. The faithless Gomer
(Hosea’s wife) and the unsympathetic wife of long-suffering Job seem to
perpetuate an image of women as morally unreliable.
But that is not the whole story. Some Old Testament
women demonstrate unique gifts of godliness and leadership: Deborah who leads
the armies of
“the redoubtable woman of Proverbs 31,”
A ‘type’ rather than historical; and in any case her husband remains the
public person, the “great man in the gate”.
“and even Rahab all stand out
as playing a key role in the unfolding of salvation history. In several cases,
they do things that the culture expected only men to do.”
Is counter-cultural activity quite the point? Aren’t they rather, like certain men, called and equipped by God for
particular tasks?
Women in the New Testament
“In the ministry of Jesus, we see something new unfold. Women are
drawn into the inner circle of the Apostles and given responsible roles,
unusual for women of the day. Some play a traditional role, traveling
with Jesus and his band and taking care of their physical needs. Others, like
Mary Magdalene and Mary and Martha of Bethany achieve a larger significance in
the meaning of the story. Several women, including Mary Magdalene and
(presumably) Mary of Bethany, are commissioned as the first witnesses of the
resurrection (Matthew 28:1ff). Significantly, these women are not female
relatives of Jesus, but his friends. Jesus also treats the notorious Woman at
the Well in
By the time the young Church emerges on the scene, women are given even
more significant roles. The Holy Spirit is bestowed on both men and women,
regardless of age, rank, or social position (Acts 2:17, 41). A woman is
also the first convert in
In his epistles, Paul mentions a number of women who exercise some sort
of leadership in the infant Church. Phoebe (Romans 16:1); Mary (Romans
16:6); Priscilla (often called by the diminutive and familiar “Prisca,”[2] and mentioned several times); Euodia and Syntyche (who, although temporarily out of sorts with each
other, are nevertheless described as “fellow laborers in the Gospel” with Paul
(Phil. 4:2); Nympha, who has a church “in her house” (Colossians 4:15); and
perhaps most significantly, Junia, who is said to be “of
note” among the apostles (Romans 16:7).”
Yes. it is hard to overstate how completely
revolutionary this was, in both Judaism and society in general. What is truly
revolutionary is that from Pentecost on the change of attitude is towards all
women, however humble. Money has of course always emancipated! Women were the
first frontier that the Gospel crossed. As with the Gentiles, their full
membership in the People of God was prophesied; but in contradistinction to
them, the silence as to whether women may belong completely, and if so on what
terms, is deafening. The question is quite simply never raised. They are ‘disciples’, ‘saints’ and ‘beloved’, with
all that that implies, both of sacrifice and of privilege. They are ‘brethren’. Every woman too is commanded to
be φιλάδελφος (loving the brotherhood) and to practise φιλαδελφία (brotherly love). Like men, they are to “Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous[3], be
strong.” (I Cor. 16:13). With men, they are to “come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of
God, to a mature (strong, masculine) man, to the measure of the full stature of
Christ.” (Eph. 4:13). There is a Christian androgyny;
but it is spiritual, and involves the practice of all the masculine virtues,
coupled with the avoidance of all the masculine vices.
One should never fail to wonder at the fact that the
gifts of the Spirit are on any honest reading of the New Testament not
differentiated by sex. Any attempted limitation on the activities of women must
come to terms with this fact.
Jesus, in His living, dying and rising, is the source
of all dignity and personhood that any modern woman enjoys.
“The name “Junia” which
is feminine, has often been rendered as “Junius” (see, for example, KJV, RSV). This change makes the name masculine, and
translators have then proceeded to add the word “men” to the Greek text. But this alteration is widely believed to have
been introduced by later editors who had difficulty believing that a woman
could have been included in the larger group of apostles. Hers was clearly an honored position of leadership among the first generation
of Christian ministers. Some scholars have linked Junia with Priscilla and Aquil{l}a, and have argued that her ministry was of the
same nature as theirs. However, they are never mentioned in the same breath as “apostles” the way Junia is.
I should mention that Paul uses the word “apostles” in at least two senses. He uses it to refer to the Twelve, a group
in which he includes himself, as one “born out of due
time” (1 Corinthians 15:8). He also uses the
word “apostles” to refer to a
wider group of missionaries, whom he sometimes calls “apostles
of the churches” (2 Corinthians 8:23). It was in
this latter group that he almost certainly included Junia and Andronicus (Romans
16:7).”
One must indeed be careful not to claim too much for Junia[4], upon
whom lots of scholarly ink has been spilled: she is not being called an apostle
in the technical sense, if she is being called one at all. There were not
hordes of those! The Greek may quite as probably mean that she was of note,
i.e. especially esteemed, in the apostolic circle. If she is indeed
being called an ἀπόστολος that must as Peter Moore says mean “missionary” here.
“The “elect lady” in 2 John 1 is sometimes cited as an example of a woman who
held a leadership role in the early Church. Unfortunately, we do not really
know who or what the “elect lady” of 2 John 1 is. Is she a woman who hosted a church in her
house? Or is she an allegorical name that John gives to the Church as a whole?
If she was a real person, then we would have evidence that, at least in the
absence of men, women were given responsibility for whole congregations.”
That she was an actual woman is not at all the
majority view.
Finally, there appears to have been a group of people
in the early Church that exercised the office, or at least the ministry, of
prophets (Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:28). Women are
included in this group, functioning as both true —
and false — prophets (Acts 21:9; Revelation
2:20).
Assessing the development to date
At this point we should pause to marvel at the
development of the place and role of women. From near obscurity in large parts
of the Old Testament, they have risen to prominence in the ministry of Jesus
and the Apostles, far beyond what might be expected, given the culture of the
day. They are equipped with the Holy Spirit, sent on missions, at the center of congregational life, called to instruct
unenlightened preachers, given prophetic messages, and commissioned to be
primary witnesses to the resurrection (Matthew 28:7).
What is, perhaps even more significant, is that women
are addressed as people who bear full responsibility for their own spiritual
lives, alongside of men. Far from simply being a subset of the male community,
they are called to personal holiness of life even when their husbands do not
demonstrate genuine faith or the fruit of the Spirit (1 Corinthians
7:13ff; Ephesians 5:22; 1 Peter 3:1ff). In several situations,
wives are mentioned before their husbands, which suggests that their spirituality
and involvement in the Church was more evident than that of their husbands.
“At this point, the reader might well ask, “Yes,
women were important, even vital, to the young Church. But what does that tell
us about whether women can be part of the ordained ministry today?” My response is that we must look at the pattern of development.
Just as the ordained ministry is a development from biblical patterns, so the
role of women is a developing pattern within the scriptural revelation. I will
return to this theme in a moment. First, I must confront a more serious issue.”
This is pretty sloppy argumentation. A development
within Scripture (by which I think that Peter must mean an unfolding) is not of
the same order as “a development from
biblical patterns”. Among other things, we can assess
the former on the basis of the internal biblical response to it. For the latter
we must respond as Church, positively or negatively, to determine whether it is
Spirit-led. The outworking of the response may take centuries. Obviously not
every development will pass the test, even if a majority of churches have
favoured or still favour it. It may for instance fail the ‘non-repugnance’ Scriptural test.
The New Testament prohibitions
“What are we to make of the prohibitions of women’s leadership roles
within the several churches to which the Epistles are addressed? To opponents
of women’s ordination, these passages are pivotal, and they must be considered
carefully by all sides in this debate.”
Yes, if there are such passages, they are pivotal.
“However, the key question is, are these strictures
rules for all time or (are) they governing principles for churches that
functioned in first century Roman and Jewish culture, where women’s roles were
severely restricted?”
Not exactly. We have no Pauline epistles which are not
occasional documents in origin. We still look to all of them for truth which
lasts and is to be obeyed.
“Even people who oppose women’s ordination are
not always consistent about this. They do not make much of Paul’s instruction that
women are not to be seen in church with their heads uncovered (1 Corinthians
11:6). Most churches do not make any attempt to enforce this rule today, even
though Paul clearly considered bare-headed women to be scandalous. Why the discrepancy?
Is it because our culture today no longer considers head coverings an issue?[5]”
We have already seen that there is probably a
principle involved, but to arrive at it means more careful study than most
modern churches have been prepared to carry out.
“The Apostle Paul sometimes had to accommodate the culture of his day
in more serious issues. For example, many fault him for not denouncing the
first century practice of slavery. But if (he) had openly attacked slavery, he
would have brought the infant Church into direct conflict with the entire
social order of his time. The Church’s survival was already threatened by
Jewish opposition and, much more seriously, by the Roman emperor’s divine
pretensions. Paul seems to have chosen to undermine slavery by treating all men
and women, whether slave or free, as potential brothers and sisters in Christ.”
Slaves represented the engine of the economy as surely
as oil does in the modern world. The institution was correspondingly fostered
and protected. No private person could have effectively “denounced” slavery in that most efficient of
tyrannies. The legal penalties for subversion of any kind were terrible. I
therefore doubt whether Paul even calculated the odds on his getting away with
any public denunciation. Slavery is nevertheless opposed in several places in
the Pauline letters: the metaphorical use is frequently, though not always,
negative; the recurrent redemption-from-slavery metaphor for salvation, taken
straight from the slave-market, strongly reinforces that negativity; Paul urges
those in a position to buy themselves out[6] to do
so by all means; he harbours a slave in the person of Onesimus;
and he begs the legal owner to treat him not as the runaway he is, but as a
brother.[7]
I do not see in anything that Paul wrote that he was
deliberately aiming to “undermine slavery”. The idea that the Church should be an agent of general social
change is not found in the New Testament.That the
Christian view of the unique value and dignity of every human being[8] would
eventually have that effect in societies where the Gospel had taken firm root
was surely foreseen by Someone; but I believe that Paul’s aim in regard to
slavery was more both modest and more immediate. Most believers, and certainly
most who were effectively chattels, would live and die in circumstances which
could not be altered. It was to that reality that his teaching was directed.
How were they to live their lives as free men who belonged only to Christ, and
to treat others as free men? It would not have helped either master or slave to
be looking forward to some ideal social set-up, to some time which would never
come in this world, and to postpone obedience to Christ in the interim.
One could add that the result is teaching which is
completely relevant to the vast majority of human beings spread out in time and
space, whose freedoms, for instance to choose one’s occupation or domicile, have always
been, and are still in the modern world, limited to non-existent.
Can a “developmental” argument also be used for homosexual practices?
If times have so radically changed, and if there is
development in the place and role of women, and in the idea of slavery, mutatis
mutandis, should not active homosexuals be given full rights and honor within the body of Christ? This line of reasoning
ignores the fact that homosexual behavior is
universally condemned throughout Scripture. Even those most adept at “reinterpreting” biblical texts have failed
to establish development in the Bible’s view of it.
Are women permitted a leadership role in churches?
“Paul says that he does not permit women to have authority over men
or to speak in church (1 Timothy 2:9-15), and he reminds his readers of
the traditional view that women are more susceptible to deception. But what
Paul “permits” and what Paul “preaches” may be two different things. It is
conceivable that Paul intends his words to be taken absolutely. But few would
say so. If he was serious, many of the women whom he credits with helping him
and other pioneers in the early Church would have been forced to be silent and
inactive. In order for women’s total silence to be secured today, we would have to eliminate women
Sunday School teachers, women missionaries, women Bible teachers, and women who
give testimony in church.”
This is not terribly well expressed. Of course Paul
was serious. The question is what exactly was he saying, as we have already
seen.
“Surely, Paul was dealing with a situation where some women have “taken over,” advanced themselves, and
undermined the men in the congregation. Paul’s policy on women in leadership
should be taken in the same way as his policy that women should not adorn
themselves extravagantly and immodestly. It hints that some women have sensed
an opportunity to take unwarranted, and perhaps ungodly, liberties in the name
of “Christian freedom.” In the
context of first century Jewish and Roman society, a female takeover would have
been scandalous and would have hinted at social disorder, giving persecutors
the upper hand in persuading authorities to suppress the cult.”
We have already seen that there are better ways of
translating and understanding this text. ‘Women in leadership’ is not quite the point at issue. There are nevertheless lasting
principles involved, even if the initial impetus came from a particular local
situation.
There is not a shred of evidence of any attempt
anywhere at “a female takeover” in churches. As for the authorities, they accepted any and all
social forms within voluntary associations, including female leadership and
exclusively female membership; what law was broken by such arrangements? So
long as there was no public disorder, and nobody refused to burn incense to
Caesar, they were quite indifferent to what went on behind closed doors. There
was significantly no official opposition to the cult of Diana/Artemis, which
detached women from their husbands. Paul seems to have been concerned about the
integrity of the Christian witness in society, not about the avoidance of
official persecution. If God required something, and persecution followed, so
be it.
We need to realise that slavery was institutionalised,
but female ‘submission’
as such was merely dominant convention. Legally women were non-persons. The
question is whether a non-person can be made legally responsible in any
meaningful sense. In this context it is striking indeed that Paul (and Peter in
I Peter 3) address married women as free agents with choices.
“Paul’s teaching in the Pastoral Epistles that deacons and presbyters (or episcopoi, bishops) should be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy
3:2,12; Titus 1:5) is cited as implying an exclusively male ministry.
But this passage more likely implies[9] that no
unmarried (or polygamous) men should be advanced to leadership within the
Church. Or it could mean that divorced (and remarried) men should not be raised
up as leaders to the flock. Which of these possibilities is the correct one
remains open to debate, but Paul’s concern here is not about women’s roles. Rather, his (strikingly
contemporary) concern is to hold up as leaders men whose sexual moral standards
reflect well on the Church.”
Yes, this is sound. Here are the texts:–
I Tim. 3:1
πιστὸς ὁ λόγος.
Εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ. 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἴναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον[10] διδακτικόν, 3 μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην, ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον
ἀφιλάργυρον, 4
τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος (5
εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ἐκκλησίας θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεται), 6 μὴ νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου.
7 δεῖ δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου.
8 Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς, μὴ διλόγους, μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας, μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς, 9 ἔχοντας
τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει.
10 καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, εἴτα διακονείτωσαν
ἀνέγκλητοι
ὄντες.
11 γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν. 12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. 13 οἱ γὰρ καλῶς διακονήσαντες βαθμὸν
ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περιποιοῦνται καὶ πολλὴν παρρησίαν ἐν πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
3:1 The saying is true: if anyone[11]
aspires to the office of bishop[12] he
desires a noble task.
2 Now a (male[13]) bishop[14] must
(necessarily) be beyond reproach, a one-woman man[15],
sober[16],
sensible, respectable, hospitable, a sound teacher,
3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not
combative, (and) not a lover of money.
4 He must manage his own family well, keeping
his children[17]
under control[18]
and respectful in every way[19]:
5 if someone does not know how to manage his
own family, how is he going to take care of God’s church?
6 He must not be a new convert, or he may get
puffed up and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover, he must enjoy a good reputation
with outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace and one of the devil’s traps[20].
8 Deacons[21]
similarly must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not
greedy for money;
9 they must hold fast to the mystery of the
faith with a clear conscience.
10 And let them too first be tested; then, if
they have been found blameless, let them serve as deacons.
11 Women[22]
similarly must be serious, not slanderers, but sober[23],
reliable in all things.
12 Let deacons be one-woman men, and let them
manage their children and their families well;
13 for those who serve well as deacons acquire
good standing for themselves and great confidence[24] in
the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Titus 1:5 Τούτου χάριν ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ, ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην, 6 εἴ
τίς ἐστιν
ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα. 7 δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἴναι
ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, 8 ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον φιλάγαθον σώφρονα
δίκαιον ὅσιον ἐγκρατῆ, 9 ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν
ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν.
1:5 I left you behind in
6 Assuming that (you appoint) someone who is
beyond reproach, a one-woman man, whose children are believers, not accused of
debauchery nor out of control[27].
7 For a (male) bishop, as God’s steward, must be
beyond reproach; he must not be wilful or quick-tempered or addicted to wine or
violent or greedy for money;
8 but he must be hospitable[28], a
lover of goodness[29],
sensible, upright, devout, and self-controlled.
9 He must have a firm grasp of the Word that is
trustworthy in accordance with the Teaching, so that he may be capable both of
preaching with sound doctrine and of confuting those who contradict it.
There is no mention of physical ordination here,
whether or not specifically signalled by the laying-on of hands. Certainly we
cannot exclude it: we see from I Tim. 4:14 that Timothy had received a
particular charism by the laying-on of hands of the eldership, and from II Cor.
8:19 that Titus was ordained in this sense by the churches for a particular task.
Nor can we exclude the possibility that physical ordination was conferred by
Timothy and Titus upon those who met the Apostolic criteria. At I Tim. 5:22
Timothy is exhorted Χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ[30] ἐπιτίθει μηδὲ κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις, as
though he were free to lay hands on individuals, just needed to do it with
discrimination. I incline to think that ordination in the technical sense of χειροτονία[31] was probably routine even thus early (cf. Acts 14:23), not as
conferring ex opere operato
the gifts and graces which were required for church leadership, but as
recognition of their presence in an individual. We cannot conclude that
ordination was a once-only procedure, like baptism. I believe too that there
was much flexibility about the work which an individual might be led to do.
That said, though the lists of personal qualities in I Tim. and Titus are not
identical, they do not signal flexibility where character and spirituality are
concerned.
I do not conceal my conviction that if more of the
explicit Apostolic criteria for church office were applied currently au pied
de la lettre, we with our three orders should be infinitely better off. No
callow youths, for instance, would even get deaconed. I should greatly prefer
an all-male ordained ministry which met these standards to a partly female
which ignored them. However, we should have to eschew for consistency’s sake all young
single men, all celibates, all widowers, all the childless, and very many of
those with children, whether they were too young to profess the faith, or
unbelieving, or otherwise out of hand. Or can we tease out the essential
principles, and leave aside certain of the details? I have very great
difficulty with any church polity which presses only some of what is explicit, while
insisting on the matter of maleness, which is implicit only. The Apostle does
not state in so many words that the suitable individual must be an ἀνήρ.[32]
Polyandry was not an option for a woman in that society. For good or ill, her
options were distinctly limited: there was much mischief which she could not
get up to[33].
Serial polygamy is an evil, with others, which cannot be tolerated in
deacons/elders/bishops, if we are to be true to the core of this teaching. Can
chaste and godly femininity?
Is male headship the Scriptural mandate?
“What, then, of the concept of male headship? Some have argued that
this idea is grounded in the creation itself, and is not a result of the Fall.
While the connection between headship and authority has been challenged by
several writers who see headship more associated with responsibility than rulership, the fact remains that man was created before
woman (rather than the two simultaneously) and woman’s role is that of a “helper.” But does this fact really mean that
God’s
intention is that no woman should ever exercise leadership over men?”
As we
have seen the order of priority is sometimes used by Paul to draw a particular
conclusion about marriage, but his reasoning cannot be made to cover Church or
society in general. As for the ‘helper’ role, this English expresses but poorly the original Hebrew at Gen.
2:20. The word עזר
‘help’ is used
of God Himself in other contexts: this is not optional, ancillary or subsidiary
‘help’, but indispensable support to one’s life. The state of the man without
the woman was ‘not good’ in God’s eyes. כנגדו means ‘corresponding to him’, i.e. adequate
to his need, as none of the other creatures had proved to be. Certainly the
woman is fully human, and a full and equal partner, according to this Hebrew.
Clearly, the story of redemption does not bear this
argument up, any more than do Scripture, tradition or reason. Why do we have
the stories of Deborah, Abigail, Priscilla, and Esther in Scripture? Each of
these women exercised leadership over men in a particular context that advanced
salvation history. Moreover, the history of the Christian Church is filled with
the stories of godly women who have exercised leadership in a wide variety of
spheres from Joan of Arc to Florence Nightingale to Mother Theresa to Cicely
Saunders, the founder of the Hospice Movement. All four of these women had to
exercise leadership to forge paths where men had not gone and did not want to
go, and they found themselves in conflict with men who tried to hinder their
ministry. What if they had submitted to those men?
The creation stories clearly indicate that women as
well as men are to “have dominion” (Genesis 1:26) over the created order. Both women and men are
held accountable for their moral choices, and are judged jointly for their
transgression. Again, woman is not a subset of man, but is a fully responsible
moral creature with a relationship with God.
Hierarchy and dominion
I find arguments against the ordination of women based
on hierarchy particularly unappealing. Some have argued that since hierarchy is
rooted in the Trinity (which it is), it should be expressed in human terms in
the submission of woman to man (a concept I find more questionable). The fact
that Adam “names” Eve “woman” does express authority (perhaps in
the sense of priority); but the naming of animals and the exercising of
dominion appear to be logically separable, for while Adam alone names the
animals, Adam and Eve together “exercise dominion.” My problem with applying the hierarchy that exists within the
Trinity (wherein Son and Spirit submit to Father) to male/female relations is
that it manifestly overlooks the fact that both men and women throughout
Scripture are called to submit to God (James 4:7). Our submission to God’s hierarchy is
expressed in a variety of ways, such as submission to ruling authorities, to
elders, and to each other (1 Peter 2:13; 5:5, Ephesians 5:21). “Within the marital relationship hierarchy is expressed through our
common reverence for Christ.”
I find this a confused and confusing way of expressing
what I believe to be the fact: in this physical world, where there is
biological sex-difference, there is a hierarchy within marriage which is ‘holy, and just, and good’. It will not last,
but not because it is somehow less than ideal.
“We have seen,
then, that the relationship between male and female within the Garden of Eden,
that is from Creation itself, is one of mutuality, joint responsibility, shared
dominion, and co-equal reflection of the image of God. True, Adam has priority
over Eve; but it is not clear that priority includes dominance, authority,
oversight, rulership, or ultimate responsibility. To
ground the headship of the male over the female in the account in Genesis
raises as many questions as it answers.”
Yes. Certainly we cannot so ground ideas of ‘headship’ in Church or society in general.
“It is quite true that since the Fall the relations between male and
female, at least within the bond of marriage, are dramatically altered. From
that fateful moment onwards, woman is subject to man as a fact of life. This is
not held up as a virtue, although it serves as a guideline for harmonious
marriage (Ephesians 5:22 ff). History bears out the fact that women
have, in general, been subject to men for a variety of reasons, of differing
moral character. In any society, someone has to lead. Women who are responsible
for children must spend large amounts of time and energy to do the job
properly, while men can fulfill a large part of their responsibility simply by
providing. A final reason is sheer physical strength. Most men are stronger
than most women, and throughout history, strength has been significant in human
affairs.”
This too is somewhat confused. Is the subject
marriage, society, or Church? Peter seems to be saying that no ‘subjection’ is good ‘subjection’. ‘Might
is right’ is not the rationale for hierarchy in
Christian marriage, nor is that arrangement some kind of second-best from which
enlightened human beings may hope to graduate.
The discussion is getting sociological here, but it is
not rigorously so. It lacks theological rigour as well.
Order of creation
“Almost all societies have reflected this “order
of creation” — and here I use the term “creation” to refer to the period after the Fall[34]. Roman
society, as well as first century Jewish society, was based on an agrarian[35], domestic,
hierarchical model. Within that model Jesus grew up, exercised his ministry,
and sent forth his disciples to announce the arrival of the Kingdom.
Jesus did not directly challenge the order of creation, but he did not
acquiesce in it either. His redefinition of the family (Matthew 12:48),
his crossing of social barriers to include women in his inner circle (John
4:7-38), his unwillingness to let men speak for women (John 8:2-11), his
commissioning of two women to be bearers of the resurrection message (Matthew
28:7), even his particular sensitivity to women’s health problems (Luke
13:10-17; Matthew. 8:14-17; Mark 5:25-34) all show a desire to
draw women into hitherto largely male territory, and to think “outside the box” of Jewish patriarchy.
Although
Yes. Still pretty sociological, but so far so good.
Order of redemption
“Galatians 3:28 depicts the believer’s release from the
control of guardians.
In this context,
As a pattern that governed all human relationships, the promise of Galatians
3:28 lay far in the future. Slavery continued, and while Christians were in the
forefront of the move to eradicate it, centuries passed before Christian
thinking came in line with biblical revelation. Moreover, the barrier between
Jew and Gentile, even within the Body of Christ, is not totally healed, as we
can see from the experience of messianic congregations of Jewish believers
today. Jewish conversion is still seen largely in terms of assimilation,
although that is far from what the Apostle Paul had in mind (Ephesians
2:14). And, thirdly, the relations of men and women, both within the Christian
community and within Christian families, have a long way to go to catch up with
Paul’s vision.
Promise and fulfillment
In Paul’s
dramatic statement about equality, we are looking at an eschatological promise,
that is, a promise of the end times. The day will come when full equality is
realized because of the gracious work of Christ. In the kingdom, we can expect
all male supremacy to have vanished — along with the
institution of marriage itself (1 Corinthians 8:5,6; 15:27,28). But the
present situation is different. We live, as theologians are fond of saying,
between the already and the not yet. We already have a foretaste of the kingdom
to come, but we are not yet able to see it fully realized, even within the Christian
community.
However, we do receive hints of the coming kingdom. These are in the form
of the “arrabon” (the Greek word for “foretaste,” or “downpayment”), which is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives and within
the Church (2 Corinthians 1:21; see Ephesians 4:30). Other hints
are the mighty works that God does in and through believers, beginning with the
dramatic healings we see in the Gospels, in the early Church, and throughout
the ages. Another hint is the measure of unity that is ours, as witnessed by
the amazing oneness that characterizes the Church across cultures, races,
languages, and social structures — especially when the
Church permits the Gospel free reign[36], and lives
in obedience to that gospel.
But — and this is my point — it is
also seen in the breaking down of hostility between the sexes: “There is neither male nor female.” This
radical breakthrough is not fully ours, but it is the direction in which God’s kingly rule
would have us move.
Our changing context
In our day, a number of societal breakthroughs have led to the
emancipation of women from traditional roles. Contraception, technology,
government aid to families, affluence, urbanization have all contributed to a
new environment in which the Church can contemplate what it might mean for
there to be “no male or female.”
Many men work under women in the workforce: in education, in charitable
organizations, in hospitals, in business, in government. Is this something to
be lamented or celebrated? Does it lead to the breakdown of marriage and the
family, or to its strengthening? Unquestionably, the growing awareness of women’s rights has put a
strain on male-female relationships in every sphere. But it need not, if both
men and women realize that these new breakthroughs, like all societal
breakthroughs, offer both promise and challenge, and lead to new forms of sin
as well as new opportunities for grace.
I am led, therefore, to think that our age, as no age before, has an
opportunity to look afresh at the biblical promise that “there is neither male nor female.” We are
given a glimpse of what society might become, and one day — in the kingdom — will become. This is the
order of redemption, and will only be ours as Christ’s kingly rule is incarnated in our
human relationships. Sin will persist, and in many parts of the world the “order of creation” is the appropriate way to
maintain stability. In those settings, the signs of a new order coming will be
few and far between. But that should not stop Christians from being in the
forefront of welcoming what God has promised.”
As we have already seen, the Gal. 3 text is not a
promise at all, and a ‘new order coming’ is not in question. It is a statement of the situation current at
the time of writing. What Peter says here may well be true in principle, but if
so it is not because of this text.
God’s
call to a Godly woman
“Should godly women who sense a true call to the ordained ministry,
and whose call has been tested by others in leadership and proven genuine, be
ordained and sent forth to serve, to preach and to lead? Most certainly yes.
Women, as well as men, bear the image of God, newly recreated in us through the
atoning work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit. They too have been gifted by
the Holy Spirit. They have received a call similar to the one men have received
through the ages. Women have already done everything on the mission field that
men have done, and now that the West has become a new mission field, have gifts
needed in our secular society.
Will a woman’s presidency at the Lord’s Table undermine the male role within the family? Not unless it is
exercised in a way that emasculates men and reestablishes
the age-old tension between the sexes. Will a woman’s leadership of a congregation cause
men to withdraw and to vanish? Not if that leadership bears the true marks of
grace and manifests the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Will children grow
up incapable of imagining God as Father, because the person at the Lord’s Table is a
woman? Not if the father’s role in the home is exemplary, and if the woman pastor herself is
manifestly submitted to her heavenly Father. Will a woman bishop wreck[37] havoc
within the diocese, undermining men’s roles and inhibiting the development of healthy men’s ministries? No,
for all the same reasons that apply above.”
There still needs to be more emphasis on the
marriage-relation of women in church office. The idea of a monarchical woman
pastor with hubby sitting in the pew ‘under’ her I find quite abhorrent. I should myself refuse to serve in such
a situation.
“Let me close with a final word: Scripture, it seems, points to the
coming of a new age in which the traditional roles of men and women are
altered, and in which — under the headship of Jesus
Christ — a new order is to be realized. This new order
cannot be established by following the world’s agenda, nor by advancing women into
leadership roles in the Church just because they are women. God is not
governed by our views of affirmative action. But there are godly women who have
a genuine call, who are truly submitted to our Lord, who have abundant gifts,
and who sense a call within themselves. It would be a shame to withhold from
them the anointing that comes when the Church sets a person apart for the full
range of ministry: pastoral, teaching, evangelistic and sacramental. It would
be an especial shame to do so on the basis of an order that for centuries has
served society fairly well, but has outlived its day. And, finally, it would be
a shame to do so in the light of the reality that will one day be ours.”
This use of what he calls a ‘promise’ appears to be Peter's main plank.
Much that he says is perfectly fine in its own terms; unfortunately it is also
beside the point. The argument seems to run like this: there is change some of
which may be termed progress, in the world, and in the Church, therefore women
should be ordained. This is imperative ‘… in the light
of the reality that will one day be ours.’ That reality
is already ours, according to
I say no more.
The Very Rev. Dr. Peter Moore is Dean and President Emeritus of Trinity
Episcopal School for Ministry. He is the author of the award-winning
Disarming the Secular Gods (IVP), One Lord, One Faith (Nelson), and
A Church to Believe In (Latimer), and most recently the editor of Can a
Bishop Be Wrong?: Ten Scholars Challenge John Shelby Spong
(Morehouse, 1998).
[1] http://www.nwnet.org/~prisca/Testimony.htm
[2] Actually
it is ‘Priscilla’ which is the (Latin) diminutive.
[3] ἀνδρίζεσθε,
in an older version “quit you like men”.
[4] I do not
regard it as fully proven that this is not a man’s name. The grammar is not
decisive.
[5] In fact
the convention, depending on the culture and generation, is by no means dead.
[6] I Cor. 7:21. These would have been men, for there were no chaste and honest ways
for a female slave to do it.
[7] That the
letter to Philemon survives at all shows that the Apostolic injunction was
obeyed.
[8] In contradistinction to the pagan. Aristotle for instance thought that to be a
slave was both just and entirely ‘natural’ for some: ‘But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom
such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a
violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering this question, on
grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be
ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their
birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.’ Politics 1254a17.
[9] More
accurately ‘states’.
[10] Lit. ‘stranger-loving’
In these passages there are several compound adjectives, positive and negative
with φιλ-.
[11] The indefinite pronoun. ‘Man’ is not expressed.
[12] Literally ‘task of oversight,.
position as supervisor’. In a Christian context the
emphasis is of course on loving care and discipline rather than on issuing
orders.
[13] The ‘generalising’ article
in v.7 τὸν ἐπίσκοπον,
because ἡ ἐπίσκοπος would be proper Greek for a
FEMALE bishop/overseer, as ἡ διάκονος would be for a female deacon,
shows that what is being said applies to men. Nothing is being said about women
in office per se.
[14] The
cognate noun ‘overseer, supervisor’.
[15] The ‘male man/husband’ word.
[16] The reference
is to abstemiousness (not abstinence) in respect of alcohol. Other potentially
addictive substances known to us are of course covered in principle.
[17] Children
must be made to obey, adults including wives choose to do so.
[18] The ‘submission’
word which we have met elsewhere.
[19] This
Greek covers respectfulnesss to all outside the home
as well as in it.
[20] Lit. ‘a
trap of the devil’.
[21] The word διάκονος means a servant or minister. This is Paul’s designation, with
detailed commendation, of Phoebe at Rom. 16:1. It is gender-neutral. The
cognate noun and verb are frequent in the New Testament. διάκονος may tend to connote service
of a practical kind, but covers ‘spiritual’ ministry. I doubt whether Paul ever
thought of any real distinction; what is more practical than preaching the
Gospel, for instance? We cannot tell whether deacons were paid servants of
churches. Incidentally, there is no justification for calling Phoebe a
deaconess as opposed to a deacon. She was a female deacon, or deacon who was
female. If Paul had thought it wrong for a church to choose, possibly even
ordain, a female as a deacon, he would certainly have said so. Instead his
praise is unqualified. There is no reason to assume that she was the only such
person in the churches.
[22] Or just
possibly ‘their wives’. If so an unsuitable wife would disqualify a man. That
has interesting implications for us. The text is quite indefinite. Some have
suggested that the reference is to women who are deacons: if so, there are
qualifications for them too, but the prescription is less detailed, because
their freedoms were fewer, leading to potentially fewer sinful indulgences.
[23] The same
‘abstemious’ word as in v. 2.
[24] This
word can sometimes mean ‘freedom in preaching’, but this may be no more than
implied here. Notable is that the very first church deacons moved on to
preaching quite soon, as we see from the early chapters of Acts. It is of
course possible that they did this not qua deacons but qua
articulate and gifted believers.
[25] The sex is specified, not by
the termination, which would cover male and female, but by the requirements in
vv. 7-9.
[26] Lit. ‘presbyters’.
Notably
the elders are plural, in accordance with the New Testament pattern of group
eldership.
[27] The
negative adjective is cognate with the same ‘submission’ word.
[28] The same compound with φιλ- already noted.
[29] Yet
another φιλ-
compound, creating wordplay.
[30] Significantly this is the indefinite pronoun; the word ‘man’, found here in older versions, is
absent.
[31] Which does not as a noun have such a sense in the New Testament.
[32] If he
had meant that in the case of deacons, Phoebe of Cenchreae, never capable of
being or becoming μιᾶς γυναικὸς
ἀνήρ, could not possibly have qualified, let alone
have been praised and commended by
[33] As I have argued elsewhere in connection with I Cor. 6:9-11.
[34] A novel use of the term. We normally mean by ‘order of creation’ the good and unsullied
arrangement of an un-fallen world-order. The Fathers included sexual
difference, with its inherent distinction of size and strength, in this. We
should acknowledge too the brain-difference between the sexes; the intelligence
of either sex is not less, but it is certainly differently organised.
[35] Not
entirely, but let it pass.
[36] Peter
means ‘rein’.
[37] Peter
means ‘wreak’.