Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection
Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied).
1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states:
(6) I promise to submit myself to the authority of the Church of Ireland, and to the laws and tribunals thereof.
Amongst those laws is Canon 22:
Men and women alike may be ordained to the holy order of deacons, of priests, or of bishops, without any distinction or discrimination on grounds of sex, and men and women so ordained shall alike be referred to and known as deacons, priests or bishops.
Put simply, I accept the ordination of women as bishops, presbyters, and deacons because the Church of Ireland General Synod, after debate and discernment, legislated for it. Accepting the authority of General Synod of a national Church is, after all, a Laudian characteristic. In the words of the 1634 Church of Ireland Canons:
This sacred Synod, being the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland in the Name of Christ, and by the King’s Authority, lawfully assembled, doth pronounce and decree, that if any within this Nation, shall despise and contemn the Constitutions thereof, (being by the said Regal Power ratified and confirmed;) or affirm, that none are to be subject thereunto, but such as were present, and gave their Voices unto them; he shall be excommunicated, and not restored, until he shall publickly revoke his error.
Recognising such authority is a key means of securing and serving the peace and good order of a national Church. Of course, this does not prevent ongoing theological debate or reflection, but such debate and reflection similarly has a responsibility to serve the peace and good order of the Church of Ireland. Mindful that the ministry of those bishops and presbyters who are women is a settled part of the Church of Ireland's life and witness, and that our closest ecumenical partners (the Methodist Church in Ireland and the Nordic Lutheran Churches) ordain women to these orders, it seems clear that the peace and good order of this Church would not be served by rejecting this ministry. The "Bond of Peace" is to be kept, as His Majesty's Declaration put it:
not to suffer unnecessary Disputations, Altercations, or Questions to be raised, which may nourish Faction both in the Church and Commonwealth.
2. Of course, "General Councils ... may err, and sometimes have erred" (Article XXI). This being so, a General Synod certainly can err. My vow "to submit myself to the authority of the Church of Ireland, and to the laws and tribunals thereof" is, of course, dependent on General Synod adhering to the formularies (as the 1870 Declaration of the Church of Ireland makes clear). Thus, for example, if General Synod removed the Nicene Creed from the liturgy and revoked Article VIII, or authorised readings from the Gospel of Thomas, I would not be submitting to its authority. What, then, of the ordination of women as bishops and priests?
I regard this as amongst those issues which Hooker describes as "things accessory, not thing necessary". He makes this comment concerning "matters of government" in the Church. There is a "difference between things of external regiment in the Church, and things necessary unto salvation" (LEP III.3.4). The ordination of women, then, becomes one of those "other things free to be ordered at the discretion of the Church", as "there be no necessity it [i.e. Scripture] should of purpose prescribe any one particular form of Church government" (III.4.1).
3. But what of Hooker - and Thomas is the same - invoking Scripture against the ordination of women? Both Hooker and Thomas point to the Pauline instructions in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, forbidding women from speaking in churches. To begin with, neither of these passages are usually relied upon by contemporary Anglicans opposed to the ordination of women and for good reason: if they are to be invoked they mean that women should not be lay readers and should never be given authority to preach. So how are these passages to be interpreted? In the words of Hooker:
When that which the word of God doth but deliver historically, we consider without any warrant as if it were legally meant (III.5.1).
Related to this is the need for caution and prudence when it comes to the traditional arguments against the ordination of women. The Summa Theologiae, for example, declares:
it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.
Hooker insists that women speaking on matters spiritual must be "confined with private bounds" (V.62.2). He notes that the Apostle's exhortation is "against women's public admission to teach". Again, if this text is determined to be addressing the Church as law, it means that women should not be authorised as lay readers or given permission to preach on occasions.
In other words, these traditional arguments against the ordination of women are caught up both with readings of Scripture that are not sustainable in an Anglican (or most other ecclesial) contexts and with attitudes on gender with which today's opponents of the ordination of women would not identify.
4. Women are and always have been priests in the Church catholic. The suggestion that women cannot act in persona Christi is challenged by the truth that women, as members of the royal priesthood, do bear Christ to the world, acting in His person, being Christ to those whom they encounter: "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). To both women and men Saint Paul addressed this priestly call:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
As there can be no priesthood apart from a participation in Christ's priesthood, women do thus share in the Lord's priesthood. If women can fully be members of the royal priesthood, why not of the ministerial priesthood when it differs from the royal priesthood not in essence but in function?
Cranmer reminds us that the difference is one of function not of essence:
the difference that is between the priest and the layman in this matter, is only in the ministration; that the priest, as a common minister of the church, doth administer and distribute the Lord's Supper unto other, and other receive it at his hands (A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, Book V.11).
This is echoed in the classical Book of Common Prayer, with the Ordinal explicitly relating the gift of the Spirit in Ordination to "the Office and Work of a Priest", and the Ember Day collects having a similar focus on function: "holy function", "office and administration". Hooker's insistence that "the word Presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable, than Priest with the drift of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ" (V.78.3) similarly reflects this understanding that the presbyteral ministry is different to that of the laity through its functions rather than sacerdotal essence. When he refers to "a kind of mark or character", it is in terms of authority to administer: "the bare execution of holy things" (V.77.2). Throughout his discussion of the ministry of presbyters, Hooker continually defines it in terms of function: "Whether we preach, pray, baptise, communicate, condemn, give absolution, or whatsoever ..." (V.77.8).
What is more, as both Sarah Coakley and Catherine Pickstock emphasise, the notion that the priest in the exercise of presbyteral ministry represents Christ rather the Church distorts historic understandings. In the words of Pickstock:
the Priest as much represents the Church to God as God to the Church, and an over-Christological reading of the Priesthood is actually a modern deviation.
That the ministry of presbyters is rooted in the royal priesthood, differs from the laity in function not essence, and that its representative function is significantly more nuanced than recent iterations of in persona Christi, all suggests that an understanding of ministerial priesthood which is dependent on male gender and its perceived representative qualities misreads the nature of both the royal priesthood and the ministry of presbyters.
5. That the ordination of women to all three orders occurred in societies which were increasingly recognising the need for women's participation in public life and institutions should not be a surprise. Nor, however, should this be grounds for condemnation. In many ways, it reflects the nature of ordained ministry. As critics of the ordination of women often point out, the early churches did not ordain women in contrast to both pagan cults and Gnostic communities.
This highlights the non-cultic nature of the Church and its ordained ministry. The fact that the Church took the terminology of the Greek polis to describe its life - ekklesia, epískopos, presbyteros, diákonos - is significant in revealing its identity not as a cultic association but, in Ratzinger's words, a "public entity" comparable "solely to the political entity". This was in itself a proclamation of the public nature of the lordship of the Crucified and Risen One. Refusing to ordain women was an affirmation by the early church of this identity and its rejection of the status of cultic association (whether of pagan temples or mystery cults). Similarly, ordaining women in the late 20th and early 21st centuries points to this same public identity, while some (note: not all) presentations of opposition to the ordination of women can have a distinctive cultic emphasis.
-------------
In conclusion, some guidelines in case of any comments on this post. Firstly, comments must be respectful in both language and tone regarding opposing views. Secondly, allegations of misogyny or heresy will result in a comment being deleted. Thirdly, comments must recognise the good faith of those with opposing views.
I think no. 4 glides over a distinction between the church and its members exercising a royal priesthood - a priesthood for humanity & creation, one might say - and the role "internal" to the church in its sacraments. I'm trying to think of an analogy, perhaps this isn't a very good one: a member of a royal family, for example, may represent the King/Queen to the public at an event, but within the royal apartments they "function" as a subject of the monarch, they don't sit on the throne, wear the crown etc. Their symbolical role is different within the internal relations, as compared to their representative role facing out, so to speak. Likewise the episcopal / presbyteral role has a meaning within the church that has a sacramental symbolism, which demands the male-female polarity for its coherence, but this isn't a necessary part of the priestly role that Christians (in their shared priesthood) carry out towards the rest of humanity & creation. The best Anglican statements of the case for a male priesthood don't invoke an ontological difference between the priesthood of believers and the ordained, as far as I know.
ReplyDeleteMy sense in all this, as a student of Austin Farrer's interpretation of Scriptural images, and a Christian romantic / Platonist, is that something has been lost along the way on both sides of the argument. Our estrangement from nature since the rise of technology and the reshaping our society in a very functional way has blunted our ability to see and feel the archetypal quality of male/female polarity. I feel that this is not at bottom an argument about Scripture, God's authority and how to apply these to changing mores, but is about what I would venture to call a sacramental quality that vibrates through all creation: cutting across it desiccates and disenchants the images.
Timothy, many thanks for your comment.
DeleteI think the analogy from the Royal Family breaks down rather significantly. All the baptised fully share in the priesthood of Christ. It is not the case that clergy (in the orders of bishops and presbyters) share it more fully or more authentically than laity. How we give expression to that one priesthood does differ: but not our share in it.
Regarding the statement that presbyteral ministry "demands the male-female polarity for its coherence", I am afraid I just do not see this at all. Administering the Sacraments, preaching the Word, blessing and absolving - I am not sure how these have any necessary relationship to "the male-female polarity". If we are saying that women cannot represent Christ, this runs entirely contrary to their participation in the royal priesthood. Nor do I see how it is necessary for, say, administering the Eucharist but not representing Christ in the world.
Your last point about disenchanting images does raise an interesting issue, for, of course, Scripture spends quite some time doing exactly this - disenchanting images and, in particular, disenchanting gendered images (e.g. Jeremiah 7:18, Acts 19:27ff). In other words, claims about a 'sacramental' quality to gender run the risk of attributing qualities to gender which go beyond Scripture (and also run the risk of attributing an eternal significance to gender when, in fact, "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage").
In this sense, I think gender is more akin to what Article 25 says of marriage: not a sacrament but a 'state of life' bestowed in creation. That gender is a gift of God is, indeed, gloriously true. Moving from this affirmation, however, to a statement of eschatological significance is rather different.
Brian.
Dear Brian --
ReplyDeleteI wonder if I can suggest two thought-wedges in what you have outlined above:
(1) I think a Laudian submission to one's own ecclesial authorities is not synonymous with affirmation of the actions (though of course, as in your case, both could be true). For instance, I myself believe that women are not eligible to be candidates to the presbyterate and episcopate, but I am submitted to my diocesan and to my province (ACNA) that does. I submit to my bishop, and to my Church, but I do not think it is presently acting rightly in this regard.
(2) You write, "neither of these passages are usually relied upon by contemporary Anglicans opposed to the ordination of women and for good reason: if they are to be invoked they mean that women should not be lay readers and should never be given authority to preach." And I agree, that this is the status quo, and it is most lamentable. The standard "anglo-catholic" "in persona" arguments are so flimsy that relying on them has made the case untenable, as you well point out. They were Romish arguments to begin with. The Bible must be the definitive word on this. I have myself sought to re-orient the "debate" to its needful biblical ground (e.g. https://northamanglican.com/holy-orders-and-prophets-another-response-to-fr-mccaulley/)
And, believing as I do (that women cannot be priests), I yet DO believe that women should be lay readers, just as Phoebe the deacon(ess) would, as the official envoy, almost certainly have read Paul's letter to the Romans when she arrived at Rome with it in-hand. The question is just about *authoritative*-speaking, i.e. preaching from the pulpit in the midst of a liturgy, which, yes, I believe the Bible prohibits women from doing (here is where I am unsure as to women in the diaconate qua modern diaconate, which gives preaching authority, unlike any that 'deaconess' had in the early Church (Apost. Const. etc).
Any ways, I mean this merely as grist for the mill, for a mind I respect (yours)
Ben+
Ben, many thanks for your comment.
DeleteLet me attempt to respond to each of your thoughtful points in turn:
1. You are, of course, entirely right: submitting to rightful ecclesial authority does not necessarily mean believing that the ecclesial authority has acted rightly. I think, however, that a Laudian approach would give rather more weight to the decision of a national synod and the need for conformity than you might imply. This is not because of any inflated claims for such a synod, but because the peace and good order of a national Church requires meaningful conformity and obedience. That said, the position you outline is one I recognise as legitimate and in good faith precisely because of the fallibility of synods and the good of theological debate and inquiry. My original point in the post regarding the CofI General Synod was, in essence, a Laudian response to the claim that Anglicans could not ordain women as priests without Rome's approval, or an general council etc. For Anglicans to claim a national synod does not have this authority strikes me - frankly - as howl-at-the-moon nonsense (it was a national synod which rejected papal claims!). Once that decision has been taken, conformity and canonical obedience are necessary to secure the Church's peace.
None of this, however, can prevent ongoing theological debate. Such is not the case in the CofI: there is no appetite at all for repealing the relevant CofI canon, meaning that such theological debate in our context runs the risk of being mere agitation. In ACNA, however, I recognise a meaningful and significant debate which does require theological inquiry and exchanges.
2. This point really did make me think - thank you. It avoids the - as you say - flimsy in persona Christi arguments and takes Scripture seriously. I think my initial response would be to ask about the meaning and coherence of these particular texts, as this determines whether they are - in Hooker's terms - 'history' or 'law'. How do they fit into and give expression to a wider and deeper coherence in Scripture? And that is where I come up empty-handed. I am not sure that I anything convincing there which does not lead to inflated accounts of gender which go beyond Scripture.
The point about authoritative speaking is interesting and challenging. Again, however, I wonder from Hooker's perspective. If, as he states, "The Church as witness preacheth [God's] revealed truth by reading publicly the sacred scripture" (LEP V.19.1), then a female lay reader or deacon reading the Scriptures to the congregation is preaching, is speaking authoritatively.
Again, thank you for your comment: I hope this is how this debate should be conducted.
Brian.
oops meant #4 not pt 2
DeleteBelieve #2 is an ugly truth 'persona Christi' or Anglocatholic arguments gingerly avoid. But that conclusion (women may not read or play a role in the liturgy) seems closer to orthodox Anglican thought (meaning the Laudian period from Andrewes to, say, late-heirs like Beveridge or perhaps Sherlock), namely, beginning with priests akin to the order of Aaron or being NT Levites. Tried to flesh this concept out via 'bowing toward the altar' some years ago. #2 seems to jive with whatever I managed to distill, and basically think it's a consequence most antii-WO care not to be consistent about. Prolix but interest in your thoughts, or those of your readers, of course: https://anglicanrose.blog/2013/06/08/serving-the-altar/
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your comment and apologies for my delay in responding. Thanks too for the link to your blog. There is much of what you say that I would affirm: restoring an Anglican iconography of the parish church; 1604 ceremonial; restoration of the office of parish clerk. My problem comes with the idea that the Levitical ministry finds its NT fulfilment in male-only ministries around the altar rather than in the service of the whole people of God. I also am entirely unconvinced by arguments which give a theological weight to gender which I cannot see Scripture as supporting.
DeleteThat said, I think you might be right that a logical conclusion of opposing the ordination of women as priests is the situation which you outline.
In terms of Caroline theology, reverencing the altar is very often presented in terms of the law of nature rather than reliance on Levitical practice. In the words of Taylor, discussing reverencing the altar, "for the Law of Nature runs alwayes through the veynes of all true religions". This perhaps should give us pause before invoking Levitical precedent for reverencing the altar.
Depending upon one's view of Scripture (infallible, sufficient, et. al.), this ought to suffice:
ReplyDelete" it means that women should not be authorised as lay readers or given permission to preach." Hear, hear.
The problem here is *not* the sufficiency and authority of Scripture (to which I am committed as per Articles VI and XX). Rather, as Hooker warns, not all commandments in Scripture "were legally meant" and to regard them as being so is to "urge it further than we can prove that it was intended" (LEP III.5.1). This requires us to discern which commandments had "particular application to special occasions" (III.4.1). As a classical Anglican, I do not regard it as sufficient to simply quote Paul's words regarding the inadmissibility of women teaching in the Church as law. Hooker demands more of us in our approach to Scripture. Indeed, as he notes, he demands us to take Scripture *more* seriously for to regard it in monochrome fashion as one straight-forward law is to fail to read Scripture appropriately.
DeleteThat others legitimately disagree with a reading a Scripture that permits the ordination of women as deacons, presbyters, and bishops, I fully accept. However, I will not accept a suggestion that my support for the ordination of women is a rejection of Scripture's authority. I fully and wholeheartedly accept and subscribe to Articles VI and XX. I expect from those who disagree with me the same charity which I believe must be extended to them.
Who among the Fathers of the Church every considered the inclusion of women into the Priesthood ? Looking into Christian history only heretical movements, such as the Montanists, allowed female clergy.
DeleteThe final point of my post, point 5, addressed this issue. When heretical groupings in the patristic era ordained women, it was usually to dissent from the self-understanding of orthodox churches as public assemblies proclaiming the public lordship of Christ. In other words, the heretical groupings sought a more sectarian understanding of their assemblies. In this context, the then orthodox practice of not ordaining women emphasised orthodox communities understanding to be public bodies with a public proclamation. In our contemporary context, the same duty and self-understanding therefore leads to a different conclusion concerning the ordination of women.
DeleteIn terms of invoking "the Fathers of the Church", as an Anglican I will necessarily want to qualify such claims. Thus Hooker counsels that it "be against all sense and reason to condemn the knowledge of so many arts and sciences as are otherwise learnt than in holy scripture, notwithstanding the manifest speeches of ancient Catholic fathers" (LEP II.5.2). Hooker cannot, of course, be accused of rejecting the authority of the Father but he is careful to qualify and limit such authority.
This is hardly an unusual position. Many statements made by patristic sources on human sexuality and gender have not been authoritatively repeated by the Churches. To give one example. Augustine (whose theology should indeed be normative for us) in his 'The Good of Marriage' encourages married couples no longer capable of conceiving to forsake sexual love: "the better they are, the earlier they have begun by mutual consent to contain from sexual intercourse with each other". Such teaching has not, to my knowledge, been officially proclaimed by a Church, despite Augustine's stature and authority.
A blanket invocation of the Fathers is rather like a proof-text approach to 'Scripture says', when the authority of Scripture is manifested by recognising the rationale and purpose revealed throughout Scripture. That the Fathers did not ordain women is obvious. The question as to why is not so obvious.
Dear Brian,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank you for a thoughtful piece here. I have been thinking about it for many months now and thought I would ask one follow up question to your response to Mr. Graham, above. I seems that your theological position on the validity of female bishops and presbyters (along with most, if not all, who defend the practice) turns on how one understands the concept of the royal priesthood of all believers. My question after pondering this for some time is: on what basis can we as Christians in the 21st century derive priestesses, in particular, from the priesthood of all believers, in general?
Permit me to give some context for my question:
1 Peter 2:9 obviously declares the truth that the Church is "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (NRSV), but this is not a concept that is particular to the New Testament. Exodus 19:6 also proclaims this. Israel as a whole is a nation of priests. Therefore, it would seem that if we want to understand the notion that Peter is conjuring in his epistle, then we need to look at the 'type' set forth in the Old Testament. One of the features of the Hebrew notion of priesthood distinguishing it from many (or perhaps all) of the ancient near east priesthoods (along with Greek and Roman priesthoods) is that there are no 'priestesses' within the priestly nation--there are only 'priests'. Godly women of Israel--who are undoubtedly a part of the nation of priests--are prophetesses, queens, warriors, judges, and any other number of roles, but they are never priestesses.
Therefore, it would seem to be the case that if we read St. Peter's epistle on its own (with out reference to the Old Testament type of Israel as nation of priests) then we see that he does not actually address or endorse the notion of priestesses and so to read that in would be at the very least to go beyond the text. However, if we read St. Peter in continuity with the Old Testament 'type', it would seem to endorse the notion of a nation of priests, in general, while clearly excluding the possibility of priestesses, in particular.
Therefore, on what basis can we as Christians in the 21st century derive priestesses, in particular, from the priesthood of all believers, in general?
A blessed Nativity of St. John to you.
Dear Joel, many thanks for your comment.
DeleteOur significant disagreement here is in the idea that the Aaronic priesthood is somehow a type of the Church's ordained ministry. Hooker says otherwise, declaring that "presbyter doth seem more fit, and in propriety of speech more agreeable, than priest with the drift of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ", because the Church has "properly now no sacrifice" and "seeing then that sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry" (LEP V.78.2-3).
Hence the New Testament's refusal to apply sacerdotal language to the ministry of bishops and presbyters, for the sacerdotal type in the Old Testament is fulfilled in Our Lord. 1 Peter is a striking example of this. The epistle freely applies the priestly language of the people of Israel to the Church - but it does not in any way apply the priestly language of the Aaronic line to the ordained ministry.
What is more, the understanding that the ministry of the presbyter does not differ in essence from the royal priesthood is not a 20th century invention of liberals but, rather, the teaching of Cranmer: "the difference that is between the priest and the layman in this matter, is only in the ministration".
In light of 1 Peter, then, we are left with the question on what basis Christians in the 21st century derive a notion of sacerdotal priesthood, removed from the royal priesthood in essence rather than only in function?
It seems to me that opposing the ordination of women as priests on the basis of a supposed continuity between the Aaronic priesthood and the ministry of the presbyter in the Church raises many more significant and problematic questions than does the ordination of women itself.
I trust you had a blessed nativity of the Baptist.
Brian.
Dear Brian, thank you for the kind and stimulating response. The intervening birth of my second daughter has long delayed a reply, if I may offer one late.
DeleteYour reference to disagreement about Aaronic priesthood is perhaps helpful, because I am not sure one need set up a division on that point. The 1 Peter 2 “royal priesthood” of all believers does not specify whether it bears relation to the Aaronic priesthood. I gather that most interpreters of the New Testament associate the “royal priesthood” of all believers as partaking in Christ’s priesthood as the High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews. St. Augustine, I think rightly, points to Christ’s priesthood being of Melchizedek (and the prefiguring gifts of bread and wine), not the Aaronic priesthood, which he says was abolished (City of God, Bk XVI.22; Bk XVII.5). So, assuming one follows the reformers’ bias in favour of St. Augustine, there is not a continuation of the Aaronic priesthood in view, but rather a royal priesthood participating in the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ.
In any event, the order of Melchizedek also is an order with no priestesses, just as the Aaronic order had no priestesses. So while Israel was a priestly nation and the Church is a priestly nation, there is no suggestion of priestesses in either. I suppose I am still interested to know, as a result, how your response to Mr. Graham, above, about all men and women sharing authentically in the priesthood of the baptised (with which I heartily agree) in any way implies priestesses or ‘presbyteras’ (for lack of a better term). There seems to be a direct equivocation there in jumping from priesthood of all believers to the permissibility of women presbyters as a result.
You also note Hooker’s views on the meaning of presbyter versus priest, which is a helpful reference. The text you note is followed immediately by Hooker’s exposition of what a presbyter is, which he defines in relation to the male sex in procreation (LEP V.78.3). The presbyters are “fatherly guides” who “Christ hath communicated the power of spiritual procreation” and who the all-male apostles represent and the title Hooker notes the Apostle Peter uses to identify the all male Apostles with the all male presbyters of the Church (1 Peter 5:1). The image invoked by Hooker is Revelation 4, which, of course, does not include any matriarchs or ‘presbyteras’, but rather patriarchs as presbyters—“fatherly guides”. So just as the twelve patriarchs issuing from Jacob gave birth to a priestly nation, out of which a tribe of male-only priests were raised up within the priestly nation, so the twelve Apostles issuing from Christ gave birth to a priestly nation, out of which male only presbyters are raised up within the body of the Church (notwithstanding later heretical sects such as the Montanists who falsely attempted ‘presbyteras’, as Hooker and the reformers were well aware).
Given Hooker’s insistence on tying the definition of presbyter to the male sex (in both spiritual and biological terms), I suppose I am still left wondering where one can authentically derive the notion of women presbyters from anywhere in the Scriptures or the Formularies as exposited by Hooker. While I agree, following St. Augustine, that asserting a continuity between the Aaronic priesthood and the ministry of presbyter in the Church is problematic, I am left wondering how such errors could justify another apparent error of women presbyters, which takes us further from, not closer to, Hooker’s vision of the order of “presbyter”.
Joel, many thanks for your comment. Firstly - and most importantly - congratulations on the birth of your second daughter. I hope you are all well.
DeleteIn terms of your comments on the matter of the ordination of women as presbyters:
1. How do we view the relationship between Christ's priesthood (in which the royal priesthood participates) and that of both Melchizedek and Aaron? It seems to me that the Epistle to the Hebrews regards both these expressions of priesthood as foreshadowing Christ and thus being gathered up in Christ's priesthood: Hebrews 6:20 (Melchizedek) and 4:14 (high priest = Aaronic priesthood). And the royal priesthood therefore shares in our Lord's gathering up of both of these priesthoods.
2. The absence of females from the Aaronic priesthood is - much like the absence of women from the New Testament presbyterate (as I state in the post) - entirely unsurprising because of the cultic meaning of women priests in the Ancient Near East.
3. As for 'jumping' from the royal priesthood to the presbyterate, I think it is more a case of women's participation in the royal priesthood ensuring that there are no doctrinal reasons making this impossible.
4. Hooker's use of a masculine metaphor to describe the ministry of presbyters cannot, I think, be invoked to definitively rule out the ordination of women to that office, not least because the Apostle also invokes feminine imagery when describing spiritual procreation in I Thessalonians 2:7.
5. To state the obvious, we fundamentally disagree on this matter. As I stated in the post, I fundamentally believe that the ordination of women as presbyters is not contrary to Scripture or to the Formularies.
Brian.
One Biblical comment on the place of women/men in the Church - the body of Christ - is this: "In Christ, there is neither male nor female. (This was a statement of Paul, who is sometimes considered misogynyistic). This is, obviously, not a bilological comment, but rather a statement of fact about the equal validity of the membership and ministry of the Body of Christ.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if 'priesthood' in the Church is concerned, primarily, with facilitating the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, then this must be seen in the light of the FACT that Mary facilitated the Presence and the Presentation of Christ in her womb. The could well be considered a priestly act - par excellence! Perhaps this may explain why Mary is called "Queen of the Saints". Also. "Holy Mary, Mother of God" might be see as the highest possible vocation.
Fr Ron, many thanks for your comment. I do think the Galatians statement is significant, albeit those Christians who disagree with the ordination of women will also recognise its importance and not deny it. I would not want to suggest (in a fundamentalist fashion) that this particular passage clearly and straightforwardly determines the issue of the ordination of women (not least because I do not think this is what it does!).
DeleteOn comparing the ministry of the priest - as a making present of Christ in Word and Sacrament - to that of the Blessed Virgin, I do indeed think this is a rich theme. Again, however, I do think this straightforwardly determines the matter of hand, but it does provide a profound and rich theme to explore.
You write above:
ReplyDelete"as Hooker warns, not all commandments in Scripture "were legally meant" and to regard them as being so is to "urge it further than we can prove that it was intended" (LEP III.5.1). This requires us to discern which commandments had "particular application to special occasions" (III.4.1)".
I think this is a very useful summary of the issue. I agree that those of us who are opposed to female ordination need to show that the biblical texts are not simply a particular application to special occasions.
You continue:
"As a classical Anglican, I do not regard it as sufficient to simply quote Paul's words regarding the inadmissibility of women teaching in the Church as law. Hooker demands more of us in our approach to Scripture."
Again, I tend to agree. One passage which might fall under the category of history as opposed to law might be 1 Cor 14. There Paul seems to be appealing to the contemporary 'shamefulness' of women speaking in public, and the cultural expectation that their speaking should be done through their husbands (Plutarch, Moralia). The fact that here Paul does not specify a transcultural reason for his command suggests that the reason may be one of local culture.
However, the same cannot be said for 1 Tim 2:11-15. Here Paul roots the argument in the very pattern of creation itself (Adam was created first, Adam was not deceived). He opens v.13 with a "γὰρ" to show that the reason why he commands verse 12 is preciously because of the transcultural reality of v.13-14. It therefore follows that the biblical prohibition on female ordination is rooted in unchanging natural law, and not in human law.
I'd encourage you to read the thorough treatment offered by Schreiner on this topic. He develops this very point and deals with the contrary readings. (Thomas R. Schreiner, “An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9–15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15, ed. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 163–226.)
Similarly, texts like 1 Cor 11:8-9 specify that headship is something rooted in creation, and Eph. 5:21-33 root it in the unchanging and eternal relationship between Christ and his bride.
Every Blessing.
Ryan
Ryan, many thanks for your comment.
DeleteLet me offer a few comments in response to each of the Scripture passages you point to.
1. 1 Timothy 2:9-15 - what is immediately significant here is that this passage is *not* about ordination. It refers to something much, much wider. If it is, as you say, an Apostolic command still applying to us, it would prevent women's voices being heard in any form of ministering the Word where there are men in the congregation. As Hooker reminds us, the public reading of Scripture is a form of preaching. Now this, it seems to me, quite clearly contradicts other portrayals of life in the Apostolic Church (Acts 18:26 and, of course, the initial proclamation of the Resurrection) - which makes it unlikely, I think, that it is a permanent, enduring command.
2. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 - likewise this passage is quite clearly not about ordination and, if taken as an enduring Apostolic commandment, has application very far beyond the issue of women's ordination. Added to this is the oddness of this passage (verse 10), which makes application exceedingly difficult to discern.
3. Ephesians 5:21-33 - again, this does not refer to ordination but has much wider application. The passage does not, of course, conclude at 5:33, but at 6:9, also embracing relationships between parents and children, and masters and slaves. Here the Apostle affirms - according to the principle that 'grace does not destroy nature' - that the relationships of the Roman 'familia' could be ordered towards life in Christ. When the Apostle refers to the order of creation he immediately applies it to the relationship between Christ and the Church, and seems to not apply it to the relationship between husband and wife. The question becomes whether the submission of the wife in the Roman 'familia' can be directly applied to contemporary domestic relationships, never mind the question of the ordination of women.
Perhaps what I am trying to suggest is that urging that such Scripture passages are enduring commands which prohibit women's ordination requires those taking this stance to apply such passages much more fully, not only with reference to women's ordination. And that, I believe, is not what life in Christ means for our domestic and social relationships.
Brian.
To Point #3 - Was St Paul wrongly interpreted by Aquinas and Hooker (amid countless others)?
ReplyDeleteOr, was St Paul merely wrong for our time?
Perhaps contemporary Anglicans have erred (and are erring)?
Perhaps Paul meant exactly what the Catholic and the Anglican (and not a few others) understand him to have meant, "that women should not be authorised as lay readers or given permission to preach."
In other words, perhaps the traditional arguments against the ordination of women are rightly reading Scripture. And although these views "are not sustainable in an Anglican (or most other ecclesial) contexts and with attitudes on gender with which today's opponents of the ordination of women would not identify," perhaps those contexts and attitudes are in the wrong and want repenting?
This comes back to Hooker's point that not all directions in Scripture are "legally meant".
DeleteIt is not, then, a question of the Apostle being wrong: it is a question of the Apostle addressing a particular context.
None of those whom I know - Anglican and Roman Catholic - who oppose the ordination of women suggest that this also entails not permitting women to preach or read the Scriptures in the liturgy.
In terms of context and attitudes to gender requiring repentance, of course, it is necessary for all of us: whether we support the ordination of women or not.
May I add that something not often pointed out in these discussions:
DeleteThe reference of 1 Corinthians 14:34 to "law" ("they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law") must necessarily be something other than divine law because there is no such injunction anywhere in the Pentateuch or elsewhere in the Old Testament, not even in the broader context of Septuaginta. This is somewhat surprising, actually, given the many patriarchal attitudes to be found in the Old Testament, but there really is no mention whatsoever about women/wives having to subject themselves to men/husbands. Genesis 3:16 is mentioned sometimes, but that is quite clearly a description of how man's fallen state affects women rather than a commandment.
So what does it refer to, then? One educated guess I have read about is the conventions of Jewish synagogue services, or in other words, tradition – which could be understood in the sense of something binding, a "law". But Jewish synagogue practices obviously do not bind Christians, even if the Apostle invoked them to reinforce his exhortation of maintaining good order.
This extra-biblical, apparently culturally bound rationale for female subjection suggests that a contextually sensitive reading of 1 Corinthians 14, insofar as it pertains to wives' obedience to husbands, would be more appropriate than a legally-minded reading.
Many thanks for your comment. It is an excellent point re: 1 Corinthians 14:34. I think it does cohere with a Hookerian reading of this and similar passages.
Delete