To Christians with female clergy

[Venerabilis]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

 

[Rosebud77]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

As a cradle Church of England, watching this emerge over the decades… My take always that “equality” does not mean homegeneity and women are equal but different and each has their gifts and skills unique to that.

As a woman I have a part to play but not the same as a man has and I have no issue re female clergy. What often bugs me is that they dress as the men do and behave as men do ,and it is not … seemly? Always think of Margaret Thatcher who became more and more “masculine” as the years passed… I think the past ages may well have had ir right but no one here is going to agree with that and that is their privilege.

We have always had a “power behind the throne” work that has been deeply fulfilling. Do no tthey say that behind every successful man there is a successful woman ?

Happy with that.

 

[Kliska]

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

I’ve not been a member of a church with women clergy, but I’ve attended church where the pastor was a woman (Methodist). I prefer the leadership of a man, as even the psychological reaction to a woman in a leadership position is different than that of a man, I also believe it’s God’s set model that it should be strong male moral leaders guiding His people.

However, I have to point out that the biblical evidence often used was there from the beginning and even in the OT; with female leaders evident in the absence of strong male moral leaders. In the NT, we do have Deaconesses, heads of houses, and Prophetesses, (and perhaps an apostle) etc… listed as well. So, leadership, yes. So, for those protestant churches without a priesthood, I can understand why women lead… for those with priests, I don’t see the same strong evidence that would allow it (unless Junia fulfilled that role as well). There were no female priests in the old testament, and perhaps only Junia listed as an apostle in the new, but granting that Junia was a female and an apostle doesn’t necessarily mean she was ordained in a priestly role and I don’t believe there is teaching that says all apostles were priests?

 

[Wesrock]

As a cradle Church of England, watching this emerge over the decades… My take always that “equality” does not mean homegeneity and women are equal but different and each has their gifts and skills unique to that.

I just wanted to highlight this. Churches with a male only (ministerial) priesthood do (or should) affirm the equal dignity of men and women before God. But as Rosebud said, equality does not necessarily mean homogeneity.

Anyway, carry on.

 

[carefullytread]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

To play devil’s advocate, how many hundred of years did it take to work out what exactly the Trinity was? How many centuries did it take for the Christian world to stand unambiguously against slavery? How long did it take to recognize the value of religious freedom? Here is a Catholic source reminding us recently that happened. You might notice it is about the same time frame as other denominations discovering the justice of female clergy.

I don’t mean to argue that there is justification for female clergy. But it does seem to me that even the Catholic Church continues to discover the message of God without new general revelation. Of course, the Church teaches that once it does teach something infallibly, it can never change its teachings, so for Catholicism, female clergy are clearly off limits forever. But for someone who doesn’t see infallibility that way, it seems to me there’s a well-trodden path of growing our understanding of justice.

 

[SyroMalankara]

To play devil’s advocate, how many hundred of years did it take to work out what exactly the Trinity was?

Replying as ‘advocatus Dei’:
0

How many centuries did it take for the Christian world to stand unambiguously against slavery?

What’s the Christian world? Some Churches never had slavery nor did they promote it.

How long did it take to recognize the value of religious freedom? Here is a Catholic source reminding us recently that happened. You might notice it is about the same time frame as other denominations discovering the justice of female clergy.

I think the Apostles recognized the value of religious freedom when they were being persecuted by pagans and former religious comrades.

 

[Padres1969]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

Regarding your first question, I’d say it was a combination of sexism, cultural obstacles and preceding generations letting the inherent sexism and culture of their time color their reading of the gospels. Regarding the second question, that said I don’t think I’d go so far as to say preceding generations were being purposefully unjust or rebelling against the Gospels. They were products of their time. Women in most societies until the last century were not seen as equals to men (and in many they still are not), and were treated as second class persons. That was just a fact of life and it colored everything men did, including reading the gospels. And such a profound equality could be missed because humans are by our very nature fallible beings, including the institutions we are left to shepherd in Christ’s absence, and that cultural/societal injustice colored everything men did for a very long time. It still does to some extent or another in every country on Earth (even those who fell women have achieved near equality today). Something that ingrained in a culture takes a very long time to overcome.

That said, I don’t expect the Roman Catholic Church to ever change course on the issue. It has been long established by the RCC that they will not ordain women. And that was established in a manner that can’t be retracted or revisited. Other Christian denominations are not so restricted.

 

[AKDee]

As a woman, I don’t find this issue to be about equality. The priesthood is a fatherly role. The priest stands en persona Christi and acts as a father to his flock. That is not a role for a woman. A woman is a motherly figure. There are plenty of roles for a woman within the church but the diaconate and priesthood are not one of them. We can become religious, we can serve as sacristans, catechists, Bible study leaders, etc etc.

I think it is clear, whether people want to accept it or not, that God did define some roles as gender specific. Only women can bear children, and only men can be ordained. It doesn’t make one gender less important, or less needed, to have some roles which are gender specific.

Additionally, it is a fact that sometimes the push for “equality” has negative consequences. When we opened up alter serving to girls, it is a fact that less boys are serving as altar servers. In fact, in every ministry that was opened up to women, they saw a subsequent drop in men willing to serve in that ministry. This has directly affected the amount of young men choosing the priesthood, because many young men that discerned a calling started out as altar servers. Less male alter servers results in less priests.

 

[Padres1969]

As a woman, I don’t find this issue to be about equality. The priesthood is a fatherly role. The priest stands en persona Christi and acts as a father to his flock. That is not a role for a woman. A woman is a motherly figure. There are plenty of roles for a woman within the church but the diaconate and priesthood are not one of them. We can become religious, we can serve as sacristans, catechists, Bible study leaders, etc etc.

I think it is clear, whether people want to accept it or not, that God did define some roles as gender specific. Only women can bear children, and only men can be ordained. It doesn’t make one gender less important, or less needed, to have some roles which are gender specific.

Additionally, it is a fact that sometimes the push for “equality” has negative consequences. When we opened up alter serving to girls, it is a fact that less boys are serving as altar servers. In fact, in every ministry that was opened up to women, they saw a subsequent drop in men willing to serve in that ministry. This has directly affected the amount of young men choosing the priesthood, because many young men that discerned a calling started out as altar servers. Less male alter servers results in less priests.

Your supposition about Altar Servers is interesting and does present a quandary even absent the unfortunate (and frankly sexist) issue in the RCC that men drop interest in a ministry if women are involved. Since in the Roman Catholic model altar servers are typically youth in many cases on a path of discernment toward priesthood, perhaps it does make sense, given that the RCC will never allow women clergy, to disallow female altar servers. If the RCC allowed female clergy (or even diaconate) it would of course make sense to allow female altar servers as they too like the boys would be able to engage in discernment along side their role as servers. But since that’s not the case there seems less reason to allow female altar servers

 

[AKDee]

Your supposition about Altar Servers is interesting and does present a quandary even absent the unfortunate (and frankly sexist) issue in the RCC that men drop interest in a ministry if women are involved. Since in the Roman Catholic model altar servers are typically youth in many cases on a path of discernment toward priesthood, perhaps it does make sense, given that the RCC will never allow women clergy, to disallow female altar servers. If the RCC allowed female clergy (or even diaconate) it would of course make sense to allow female altar servers as they too like the boys would be able to engage in discernment along side their role as servers. But since that’s not the case there seems less reason to allow female altar servers

For what it’s worth I don’t think men drop interest in various ministries because women are involved, but rather because men are no longer necessary.

 

[Padres1969]

For what it’s worth I don’t think men drop interest in various ministries because women are involved, but rather because men are no longer necessary.

Guess I’m not seeing the distinction. If women are present it doesn’t mean men aren’t necessary. To be fair to you personally I’ve not seen you suggest it, but I have seen it suggested and even openly stated by others on CAF that many men are unwilling to engage in a ministry if women are involved. Either because they feel it’s not a role for men if women are involved, or out of some form of courtesy to the women (akin to holding a door and letting a woman in first).

 

[Venerabilis]

Rosebud77,

Your thoughts about the definition of the Trinity are appreciated in this context. Good analogy.

Padres1969,

Thank you for your explanation. I found it a helpful insight into how Episcopalians must view things today.

I feel that a few things are unclear, most especially why the Apostles didn’t choose Mary the Mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene to replace Judas, for example, and why after Pentecost they didn’t ordain any women at all. If it was purely because of cultural conditioning, then what else might be pure cultural conditioning in our faith? If most of it could be explained that why, then why exactly do we trust the Bible or the Church at all?

 

[AKDee]

Guess I’m not seeing the distinction. If women are present it doesn’t mean men aren’t necessary. To be fair to you personally I’ve not seen you suggest it, but I have seen it suggested and even openly stated by others on CAF that many men are unwilling to engage in a ministry if women are involved. Either because they feel it’s not a role for men if women are involved, or out of some form of courtesy to the women (akin to holding a door and letting a woman in first).

I suppose that some people might think it’s that men don’t want to be involved in a ministry that women are involved in (solely because women are involved) but in my personal observations I think it’s got more to do with men no longer being necessary. It goes from “I’d better sign up, because they need more men.” to “Well, I don’t need to sign up, because there’s plenty of women that will do it.”

In an unrelated and yet similar phenomenon, studies have shown that men are hardwired to be providers and that due to the advent of welfare that stripped men of their necessary role as provider (replacing them with the government) that it emasculated men and has resulted in a great deal of unemployment, despair, drug and alcohol addiction and even domestic violence. We see this problem in a number of villages throughout Alaska, and in inner cities in the continental US.

Men are hardwired to be needed, it’s biological.

 

[Venerabilis]

I suppose that some people might think it’s that men don’t want to be involved in a ministry that women are involved in (solely because women are involved) but in my personal observations I think it’s got more to do with men no longer being necessary. It goes from “I’d better sign up, because they need more men.” to “Well, I don’t need to sign up, because there’s plenty of women that will do it.”

In an unrelated and yet similar phenomenon, studies have shown that men are hardwired to be providers and that due to the advent of welfare that stripped men of their necessary role as provider (replacing them with the government) that it emasculated men and has resulted in a great deal of unemployment, despair, drug and alcohol addiction and even domestic violence. We see this problem in a number of villages throughout Alaska, and in inner cities in the continental US.

Men are hardwired to be needed, it’s biological.

I think you’re on to something with this. Females have always been the more religious members of our species. It’s no joke that several ringings of bells were instituted to bring the men into Church, who had been outside smoking and talking, before the consecration. The women were inside the whole time. Altar-serving was always a bit of an onerous duty for most young guys… and so the moment girls got in on it, “phew, we don’t have to do it anymore!”

Honestly, attributing all relationships of male-female status in the Church as tinged with sexism has gotten very tiring to me.

 

[Contarini]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

The problem with this argument is that there are other things, such as slavery, that the Church did tolerate for centuries. So it seems pretty clear that there are points where the Church has come to a fuller understanding of the implications of the Gospel.

The other side of the coin is that I don’t think political/social equality is as central to the Gospel as many modern Christians do. I certainly think it’s an important application of the Gospel. But I read the New Testament to say, as Christians have throughout the centuries, that the Gospel can be lived out even in very unequal power relations. I don’t think that this means that such relations are desirable or ordained by God. But clearly neither Jesus nor Paul was what we would now call a “feminist.” I don’t think that implies that feminism is bad, but it does imply that it’s not quite as central to the redemptive plans of God as feminist theology claims.

A further point: I think you assume, as people often do, that if we say that women should be ordained then we are condemning the personal character of all the saints who believed things we would now call “sexist.” But this is plainly false. For one thing, the fact that saints did believe such things is beyond question–Aquinas held to Aristotelian physiology according to which women were biologically inferior to men and existed (as a distinct sex) only for purposes of procreation. And he was typical, not unique or unusual. Complementarianism is almost as modern as feminism. Whether one believes that women should be ordained or not is really irrelevant to the historical fact that most male Christians (at least) for most of Christian history believed things that pretty much all Christians today would reject, on this as on a number of other topics.

Rather than being a mark of personal sin, such beliefs were beliefs about the nature of the world which we know believe to have been mistaken, like the belief that the sun went around the earth. Of course sinful pride and envy may well have played a role in these beliefs for many men, especially the (very ancient) men with whom these attitudes originated. But there’s no reason to assume that St. Thomas or any other saint was guilty of personal sin in his attitudes toward women just because he believed things about them that it would be hard for a person to believe now without grave sin. And that he did believe such things is, again, beyond reasonable dispute. The claims to the contrary are special pleading, and resting Catholic faith on them makes Catholic faith inaccessible to historically trained people.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Rosebud77,

Your thoughts about the definition of the Trinity are appreciated in this context. Good analogy.

Padres1969,

Thank you for your explanation. I found it a helpful insight into how Episcopalians must view things today.

I feel that a few things are unclear, most especially why the Apostles didn’t choose Mary the Mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene to replace Judas, for example, and why after Pentecost they didn’t ordain any women at all. If it was purely because of cultural conditioning, then what else might be pure cultural conditioning in our faith? If most of it could be explained that why, then why exactly do we trust the Bible or the Church at all?

They chose Matthias because the Holy Spirit chose him

 

[Novocastrian]

The problem with this argument is that there are other things, such as slavery, that the Church did tolerate for centuries. So it seems pretty clear that there are points where the Church has come to a fuller understanding of the implications of the Gospel.

The other side of the coin is that I don’t think political/social equality is as central to the Gospel as many modern Christians do. I certainly think it’s an important application of the Gospel. But I read the New Testament to say, as Christians have throughout the centuries, that the Gospel can be lived out even in very unequal power relations. I don’t think that this means that such relations are desirable or ordained by God. But clearly neither Jesus nor Paul was what we would now call a “feminist.” I don’t think that implies that feminism is bad, but it does imply that it’s not quite as central to the redemptive plans of God as feminist theology claims.

A further point: I think you assume, as people often do, that if we say that women should be ordained then we are condemning the personal character of all the saints who believed things we would now call “sexist.” But this is plainly false. For one thing, the fact that saints did believe such things is beyond question–Aquinas held to Aristotelian physiology according to which women were biologically inferior to men and existed (as a distinct sex) only for purposes of procreation. And he was typical, not unique or unusual. Complementarianism is almost as modern as feminism. Whether one believes that women should be ordained or not is really irrelevant to the historical fact that most male Christians (at least) for most of Christian history believed things that pretty much all Christians today would reject, on this as on a number of other topics.

Rather than being a mark of personal sin, such beliefs were beliefs about the nature of the world which we know believe to have been mistaken, like the belief that the sun went around the earth. Of course sinful pride and envy may well have played a role in these beliefs for many men, especially the (very ancient) men with whom these attitudes originated. But there’s no reason to assume that St. Thomas or any other saint was guilty of personal sin in his attitudes toward women just because he believed things about them that it would be hard for a person to believe now without grave sin. And that he did believe such things is, again, beyond reasonable dispute. The claims to the contrary are special pleading, and resting Catholic faith on them makes Catholic faith inaccessible to historically trained people.

I do wish you would post here more often!

 

[Rosebud77]

As a woman, I don’t find this issue to be about equality. The priesthood is a fatherly role. The priest stands en persona Christi and acts as a father to his flock. That is not a role for a woman. A woman is a motherly figure. There are plenty of roles for a woman within the church but the diaconate and priesthood are not one of them. We can become religious, we can serve as sacristans, catechists, Bible study leaders, etc etc.

I think it is clear, whether people want to accept it or not, that God did define some roles as gender specific. Only women can bear children, and only men can be ordained. It doesn’t make one gender less important, or less needed, to have some roles which are gender specific.

Additionally, it is a fact that sometimes the push for “equality” has negative consequences. When we opened up alter serving to girls, it is a fact that less boys are serving as altar servers. In fact, in every ministry that was opened up to women, they saw a subsequent drop in men willing to serve in that ministry. This has directly affected the amount of young men choosing the priesthood, because many young men that discerned a calling started out as altar servers. Less male alter servers results in less priests.

Thankyou…

 

[GKC]

I do wish you would post here more often!

A point I’ve raised, myself, of late. Though we do have our personal distinguishing characteristics.

 

[goout]

Dear brethren in Christ,

Arguments about the ordination of women are often inconclusive, biblically-speaking, but the deeper theology of womens’ ordination is actually much more Christological/Edenic in focus than I had imagined. Some theologians seem convinced about it. But I wonder one thing:

If the equality of men and women in Christ is so crucial, even in Church ministry, why did every Christian generation until the 20th century forbid women as clergy? Was it purely because of sexism/cultural obstacles? Or was it just our predecessors not realizing the fullness of the Gospel until now?

But doesn’t that make all our ancient predecessors (including the Apostles themselves!) pretty unjust and in rebellion against the very Gospel itself? I just don’t understand how such a profound equality of man & woman in Christ could’ve been completely missed by Church for 1900 years…

This question is asked in all love, with respect…

It’s not a matter of the Church forbidding something. It’s an existential thing based in the Incarnation.
Christ is a man.
Forbidding is when someone has the capacity or the right to do something and is denied it.
The problem becomes that some people see the priesthood as a matter of rights and/or power. The Church does not see the priesthood as a position of power and privilege but rather as a vocation of service.