women's ordination, or, in which I offend everybody round 2
Here are some scattered thoughts on WO, after the ordination of Susan Freeman to the priesthood in the Anglican Church in North America (my denomination) and Mary Glasspool to the epsicopate in The Episcopal Church. Not really trying to make this coherent or qualify any statements.
The ordination of women has no warrant in Scripture. I don't need to go over the relevant passages, and after growing up in a "fundamentalist" church that nonetheless ordained women I feel like I've heard enough arguments either way. There is no clear evidence that women were ordained in the Church until modern times (except perhaps as deaconesses), and never in apostolic succession until the 20th century. Even then, it was by The Episcopal Church, which had already begun to abandon the Apostolic faith (and which later used WO as an excuse for full abandonment). Currently, it threatens to tear both the ACNA and the Church of England apart. Scripture does not allow the ordination of women, Tradition has not practiced it, and even if Reason can make a good argument for it (which I doubt), it must bow to the canon of Scripture and the discipline of the Church.
On the contrary, Scripture, which the Church is bound to follow, clearly teaches that although men and women are equal in the eyes of God, headship office in the family and the church belongs to men. "The women" mentioned in Paul's list of qualifications for Timothy must be read as the deacons' wives, and not deaconesses, because the statement about "the women" is sandwiched between statements about the male deacons.
I think the example of Scripture (the women at the tomb, Priscilla, etc.) shows that women had a role in evangelization, in the spread of the Gospel, and perhaps even in teaching. Direct commands in Scripture need to be accounted for before examples, since examples can be very complex and misleading. However, I think these examples show that things are more complex than "let the women keep silent."
Judging from other of his remarks, Paul clearly had a very high regard for women. In his words in Ephesians 5 about wives and husbands, he affirms that the husband is the head of the household, but A) spends much more time talking about the need for husbands to respect and honor their wives, and B) grounds male headship in the work of Christ on the cross (the male takes up the role of Christ, and the woman the role of the Church, typologically). Male headship is not about personal qualification, but office and typology, ie, representing or dramatizing the work of Christ in a symbolic but effectual way (hm sacraments...), out of duty and position and not out of your own personality (the authority is located in the office of husband, which derives from the work of Christ, and not in the actual person).
I grew up in a household where male headship was upheld, and I got to see this firsthand. Male headship does not mean that the husband is a tyrant, or that the wife has no say. Usually my dad doesn't exercise any kind of control; it's just a given that he's in charge. My mom's authority is formally by delegation, but she sure has a lot of authority, and it would be wrong for my dad not to delegate it. Again it's more about office than the person. And yet, it's been a very helpful and beautiful thing for our family, although right now is not the time to reflect on that.
Anyway, I think considering the role of women in the home is very helpful in determining their role in "the household of God." The former is more theologically developed in the Bible, and easier to see worked out in practice. Reflections based on Ephesians 5:
1. A minister's authority derives from the authority of the Word of God, specifically of Christ's institution of the Apostles as the ministers of the New Covenant. This is true even in churches not in Apostolic Succession, though perhaps in a defective way.
2. Just as the Apostles were sent out as Christ's representatives to the world, so Christian ministers are representatives of Christ to their congregations. When they preach the Word, they represent the Word of God who was spoken into our world. When they preside over the administration of the Sacrament, they represent the Paschal Victim who offered Himself for our sakes (this doesn't make the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice, or the priest a sacrificial priest). When they ordain other ministers, they represent the Risen Christ giving the Holy Spirit and the Power of the Keys to the Apostles, and sending them out as His ambassadors. Judging by Ephesians 5, it seems to be a theme in Scripture that whenever a person, by office and not by personality, represents Christ to another person (husband to wife, apostle to world, minister to congregation), a man should take the Christ-role to a woman, and a woman should take the Church-role to a man.
(what about all Christians, who by office have the duty to represent Christ to the world? Are women not allowed to witness to men? The women at the tomb show that this is not true. So, how is my statement about men and women representing Christ true? I think this is a different kind of office, since it's one that everyone is called to, not just individual people. But that's a tricky question and I need to think about it.)
3. Ministers also send out laymen; in fact, they have a Biblical duty to "equip the saints for the work of the ministry" (Ephesians 4:12). Here they also represent Christ in ratifying and making effectual His call on His people's lives, both in preparing them for ministry by teaching and discipleship, and also through prayer and ceremonies of commissioning.
4. Paul's example as a minister shows that the words "the saints" include women. Therefore, women have a role in ministry. The women at the tomb are an example; and Paul talks about older women instructing the younger women. This wouldn't make sense if the action of ministry, rather than the office, were restricted to men.
The office of ministry belongs to men; but the action of ministry belongs to the saints, and it is the duty of the officers of the Church to equip the saints for ministry. So, I think it's appropriate for women to take leadership and speaking roles in the Church, on a very limited basis, and provided that they do so under the authority of duly-appointed male clergy.
In the ACNA, bishops must be male. However, bishops are allowed to ordain and install female priests in their own dioceses and missionary networks. Some people claim that this is an untenable compromise, and that there is no argument for woman priests that will not inevitably lead to an argument for woman bishops. But I think that an office/headship model of church government, rooted in the person of Christ and not in the person of the ministers, may provide a "compromise theology" that allows for female priests serving under the headship of male bishops, preaching and administering the Sacraments under the headship of that bishop.
I don't completely agree with that theology- I think Paul's words about "bishops" in Timothy are talking about what we today call priests, I am not comfortable with the idea of a woman consecrating the Eucharist, and I think his words about women teaching still need to be accounted for. And, ugh, the whole idea of a "compromise theology" is just... so Anglican!
But. In the middle of all these debates about ordination, I think we tend to forget about what ordination is about. Ordination is about the preaching of the Word of God: the Word of God that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, both makes known to us and makes effective for us the promises of God through His Son Jesus Christ. Wherever the Word is preached, no matter how imperfectly, Christ is present, and the Holy Spirit is at work in the hearts of those who hear it. Faith is created in our hearts because of the Word, and sacraments are made conduits of God's grace through the same Word: not by a magical reciting of Bible verses like a spell, but by God's bursting into the world on account of His covenant promises. The agency is God's not ours. All we can do is consent, and this goes for the human minister as well as the one ministered to. I can baptize someone, but I can't forgive their sins: that belongs to God. I can read the Bible to someone all I want, but that won't bring them to faith in Christ: but the Holy Spirit, working through the Word, can do that and more.
Of course, God has given His Church the role of proclaiming the Word, and the apostles (and their successors) are the "stewards of the mysteries of God." God has set up an order for this: male ministers are the proper stewards, and ordained in succession from the Apostles. But I find no reason in Scripture to locate the efficacy of the Word in the validity of the minister. It's clear from history that women pastors and women preachers, operating by their own authority and not from the authority of men, have preached the Word to great effect. So have men ordained outside of apostolic succesion, or not ordained at all. If this is by the power of the Spirit in the Word preached, I'm not comfortable restricting the operation of God's grace to valid ministers. And if I read the Bible right in saying that sacramental grace is necessary to Christian life (when it can be gotten), I can't say that God will deprive people of sacraments because their ministers are invalid. That doesn't mean that the work of invalid ministers (including women) isn't improper, defective, and indeed invalid (admittedly in a different sense than Roman Catholics mean when they say "invalid"); but it is the same work of God as that performed by valid minister, because God's promise is attached to it.
The ordination of women has no warrant in Scripture. I don't need to go over the relevant passages, and after growing up in a "fundamentalist" church that nonetheless ordained women I feel like I've heard enough arguments either way. There is no clear evidence that women were ordained in the Church until modern times (except perhaps as deaconesses), and never in apostolic succession until the 20th century. Even then, it was by The Episcopal Church, which had already begun to abandon the Apostolic faith (and which later used WO as an excuse for full abandonment). Currently, it threatens to tear both the ACNA and the Church of England apart. Scripture does not allow the ordination of women, Tradition has not practiced it, and even if Reason can make a good argument for it (which I doubt), it must bow to the canon of Scripture and the discipline of the Church.
On the contrary, Scripture, which the Church is bound to follow, clearly teaches that although men and women are equal in the eyes of God, headship office in the family and the church belongs to men. "The women" mentioned in Paul's list of qualifications for Timothy must be read as the deacons' wives, and not deaconesses, because the statement about "the women" is sandwiched between statements about the male deacons.
I think the example of Scripture (the women at the tomb, Priscilla, etc.) shows that women had a role in evangelization, in the spread of the Gospel, and perhaps even in teaching. Direct commands in Scripture need to be accounted for before examples, since examples can be very complex and misleading. However, I think these examples show that things are more complex than "let the women keep silent."
Judging from other of his remarks, Paul clearly had a very high regard for women. In his words in Ephesians 5 about wives and husbands, he affirms that the husband is the head of the household, but A) spends much more time talking about the need for husbands to respect and honor their wives, and B) grounds male headship in the work of Christ on the cross (the male takes up the role of Christ, and the woman the role of the Church, typologically). Male headship is not about personal qualification, but office and typology, ie, representing or dramatizing the work of Christ in a symbolic but effectual way (hm sacraments...), out of duty and position and not out of your own personality (the authority is located in the office of husband, which derives from the work of Christ, and not in the actual person).
I grew up in a household where male headship was upheld, and I got to see this firsthand. Male headship does not mean that the husband is a tyrant, or that the wife has no say. Usually my dad doesn't exercise any kind of control; it's just a given that he's in charge. My mom's authority is formally by delegation, but she sure has a lot of authority, and it would be wrong for my dad not to delegate it. Again it's more about office than the person. And yet, it's been a very helpful and beautiful thing for our family, although right now is not the time to reflect on that.
Anyway, I think considering the role of women in the home is very helpful in determining their role in "the household of God." The former is more theologically developed in the Bible, and easier to see worked out in practice. Reflections based on Ephesians 5:
1. A minister's authority derives from the authority of the Word of God, specifically of Christ's institution of the Apostles as the ministers of the New Covenant. This is true even in churches not in Apostolic Succession, though perhaps in a defective way.
2. Just as the Apostles were sent out as Christ's representatives to the world, so Christian ministers are representatives of Christ to their congregations. When they preach the Word, they represent the Word of God who was spoken into our world. When they preside over the administration of the Sacrament, they represent the Paschal Victim who offered Himself for our sakes (this doesn't make the Eucharist a propitiatory sacrifice, or the priest a sacrificial priest). When they ordain other ministers, they represent the Risen Christ giving the Holy Spirit and the Power of the Keys to the Apostles, and sending them out as His ambassadors. Judging by Ephesians 5, it seems to be a theme in Scripture that whenever a person, by office and not by personality, represents Christ to another person (husband to wife, apostle to world, minister to congregation), a man should take the Christ-role to a woman, and a woman should take the Church-role to a man.
(what about all Christians, who by office have the duty to represent Christ to the world? Are women not allowed to witness to men? The women at the tomb show that this is not true. So, how is my statement about men and women representing Christ true? I think this is a different kind of office, since it's one that everyone is called to, not just individual people. But that's a tricky question and I need to think about it.)
3. Ministers also send out laymen; in fact, they have a Biblical duty to "equip the saints for the work of the ministry" (Ephesians 4:12). Here they also represent Christ in ratifying and making effectual His call on His people's lives, both in preparing them for ministry by teaching and discipleship, and also through prayer and ceremonies of commissioning.
4. Paul's example as a minister shows that the words "the saints" include women. Therefore, women have a role in ministry. The women at the tomb are an example; and Paul talks about older women instructing the younger women. This wouldn't make sense if the action of ministry, rather than the office, were restricted to men.
The office of ministry belongs to men; but the action of ministry belongs to the saints, and it is the duty of the officers of the Church to equip the saints for ministry. So, I think it's appropriate for women to take leadership and speaking roles in the Church, on a very limited basis, and provided that they do so under the authority of duly-appointed male clergy.
In the ACNA, bishops must be male. However, bishops are allowed to ordain and install female priests in their own dioceses and missionary networks. Some people claim that this is an untenable compromise, and that there is no argument for woman priests that will not inevitably lead to an argument for woman bishops. But I think that an office/headship model of church government, rooted in the person of Christ and not in the person of the ministers, may provide a "compromise theology" that allows for female priests serving under the headship of male bishops, preaching and administering the Sacraments under the headship of that bishop.
I don't completely agree with that theology- I think Paul's words about "bishops" in Timothy are talking about what we today call priests, I am not comfortable with the idea of a woman consecrating the Eucharist, and I think his words about women teaching still need to be accounted for. And, ugh, the whole idea of a "compromise theology" is just... so Anglican!
But. In the middle of all these debates about ordination, I think we tend to forget about what ordination is about. Ordination is about the preaching of the Word of God: the Word of God that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, both makes known to us and makes effective for us the promises of God through His Son Jesus Christ. Wherever the Word is preached, no matter how imperfectly, Christ is present, and the Holy Spirit is at work in the hearts of those who hear it. Faith is created in our hearts because of the Word, and sacraments are made conduits of God's grace through the same Word: not by a magical reciting of Bible verses like a spell, but by God's bursting into the world on account of His covenant promises. The agency is God's not ours. All we can do is consent, and this goes for the human minister as well as the one ministered to. I can baptize someone, but I can't forgive their sins: that belongs to God. I can read the Bible to someone all I want, but that won't bring them to faith in Christ: but the Holy Spirit, working through the Word, can do that and more.
Of course, God has given His Church the role of proclaiming the Word, and the apostles (and their successors) are the "stewards of the mysteries of God." God has set up an order for this: male ministers are the proper stewards, and ordained in succession from the Apostles. But I find no reason in Scripture to locate the efficacy of the Word in the validity of the minister. It's clear from history that women pastors and women preachers, operating by their own authority and not from the authority of men, have preached the Word to great effect. So have men ordained outside of apostolic succesion, or not ordained at all. If this is by the power of the Spirit in the Word preached, I'm not comfortable restricting the operation of God's grace to valid ministers. And if I read the Bible right in saying that sacramental grace is necessary to Christian life (when it can be gotten), I can't say that God will deprive people of sacraments because their ministers are invalid. That doesn't mean that the work of invalid ministers (including women) isn't improper, defective, and indeed invalid (admittedly in a different sense than Roman Catholics mean when they say "invalid"); but it is the same work of God as that performed by valid minister, because God's promise is attached to it.